Genetic analysis of longitudinal height data using random regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic analysis of forest longitudinal height data using random regression (RR) has the potential to be attractive to tree breeders because of its advantages for selection at early ages. Our study provides an example of implementation of RR to forest tree height growth data. The data set comes from the Swedish Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) breeding program with a pedigree over three generations and consists of 899 trees with reconstructed phenotypic height records for 16 years. Legendre polynomials and B-splines were used as base functions in RR models. The restricted maximum likelihood method was employed to estimate (co)variance parameters. Results show that heritability increased with age, except for early ages (years 1 to 4). In general, slightly higher heritabilities were found for the RR model than for the single-trait and paired-trait analyses for most ages. Moreover, the heritabilities obtained with B-splines as the base function tended to be somewhat higher than those obtained with Legendre polynomials. The RR method provides a promising approach for estimating genetic parameters of longitudinal data that can be used in early selection. However, application to real data from other species and to simulated data is needed before general breeding recommendations can be established.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".