The LASSO and Sparse Least Squares Regression Methods for SNP Selection in Predicting Quantitative Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work concerning quantitative traits of interest has focused on selecting a small subset of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from amongst the SNPs responsible for the phenotypic variation of the trait. When considered as covariates, the large number of variables (SNPs) and their association with those in close proximity pose challenges for variable selection. The features of sparsity and shrinkage of regression coefficients of the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method appear attractive for SNP selection. Sparse partial least squares (SPLS) is also appealing as it combines the features of sparsity in subset selection and dimension reduction to handle correlations amongst SNPs. In this paper we investigate application of the LASSO and SPLS methods for selecting SNPs that predict quantitative traits. We evaluate the performance of both methods with different criteria and under different scenarios using simulation studies. Results indicate that these methods can be effective in selecting SNPs that predict quantitative traits but are limited by some conditions. Both methods perform similarly overall but each exhibit advantages over the other in given situations. Both methods are applied to Canadian Holstein cattle data to compare their performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".