ArticleMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2026
Impact of scale parameter for marker variance prior in some Bayesian whole-genome regression methods.
Article in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, traditional single-trait Bayesian whole-genome regression methods (BayesA, BayesB, and BayesCπ), which treat the scale parameter of the marker variance prior as fixed, were compared to alternative versions (BayesSA, BayesSB, and BayesSCπ) that estimate this parameter from the data using a Gamma prior. Analyses were conducted using a publicly available dataset of 3,534 animals from a commercial PIC pig population with genotypic and phenotypic records. Model performance for each trait was evaluated through six-fold cross-validation, using the correlation between genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) and pseudo estimated breeding values (pEBV) as the measure of predictive accuracy. The alternative BayesSA model achieved higher accuracy than BayesA, whereas BayesSB showed no improvement, likely because its estimated scale parameters were similar to the fixed values in BayesB. For BayesCπ, results confirmed that the limited influence of the prior on marker variance led to similar performance between the classical and alternative versions. Heritability was estimated for five traits (T1–T5), and model specification affected these estimates slightly. The alternative models, which estimate prior variance parameters from the data rather than assuming them as fixed, generally produced lower heritability estimates than their classical counterparts. Considering that the reference heritability values from the original PIC study were based on extensive pedigree and high-density genotype data, the alternative models’ estimates can be regarded as reasonably consistent. These findings indicate that hyperparameter estimation in Bayesian models can improve prediction accuracy and the reliability of heritability estimates, providing a more suitable framework for traits with complex genetic architectures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42050216What 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.