ArticlePlant phenomics (Washington, D.C.)2025
Comparing statistical 'phenomic prediction' models for remote-sensing-based phenotyping of maize susceptibility to common rust.
Article in Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing cotton boll-opening concentration for harvest decision-making via foundation model-enhanced cross-scale phenotyping.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigate the potential of phenomic prediction (PP) in remote-sensing-based phenotyping for genetic studies. Rather than relying on a single vegetation index, we utilize all available data collectively to predict the human-assigned visual score (VS). The conceptual motivation is that when a trained model is available, these predictions may provide a more accurate assessment of disease symptoms than the use of a specific vegetation index (VI). To evaluate the PP approach, we employ the predicted VS in a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and consider strength and position of the detected genetic signal. We use two different sets of predictor variables: i) the five basic wavelengths captured by a multispectral and a thermal camera (basic traits model, BT) or ii) all traits (AT), consisting of the five basic wavelengths plus ten vegetation indices. As statistical methods, we compare a) (linear) ordinary least squares regression (OLS), b) (linear) ridge regression (RR), c) (linear) least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) d) an artificial neural network (ANN) and e) a gradient boosted regression tree method (GBRT). Our results indicate that the simple linear OLS regression on the five basic wavelengths (BT-OLS) performs on a level comparable to the best individual vegetation index G. The use of all traits in the OLS regression (AT-OLS) leads to overfitting, which was prevented by the regularization in AT-RR and AT-LASSO. The non-linear ANN approach seems to improve the results further, but the differences between the methods were not statistically significant. The strongest improvement for the purification of the genetic signal was observed when genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) for the different traits (VS, basic wavelengths, vegetation indices) instead of their adjusted phenotypes were used. Across all approaches, the combination of GEBVs with Ridge Regression or the non-linear ANN provided the best results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.