Comparison of Bayesian regression models and partial least squares regression for the development of infrared prediction equations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the prediction accuracy of 92 infrared prediction equations obtained by different statistical approaches. The predicted traits included fatty acid composition (n = 1,040); detailed protein composition (n = 1,137); lactoferrin (n = 558); pH and coagulation properties (n = 1,296); curd yield and composition obtained by a micro-cheese making procedure (n = 1,177); and Ca, P, Mg, and K contents (n = 689). The statistical methods used to develop the prediction equations were partial least squares regression (PLSR), Bayesian ridge regression, Bayes A, Bayes B, Bayes C, and Bayesian least absolute shrinkage and selection operator. Model performances were assessed, for each trait and model, in training and validation sets over 10 replicates. In validation sets, Bayesian regression models performed significantly better than PLSR for the prediction of 33 out of 92 traits, especially fatty acids, whereas they yielded a significantly lower prediction accuracy than PLSR in the prediction of 8 traits: the percentage of C18:1n-7 trans -9 in fat; the content of unglycosylated κ-casein and its percentage in protein; the content of α-lactalbumin; the percentage of α S2 -casein in protein; and the contents of Ca, P, and Mg. Even though Bayesian methods produced a significant enhancement of model accuracy in many traits compared with PLSR, most variations in the coefficient of determination in validation sets were smaller than 1 percentage point. Over traits, the highest predictive ability was obtained by Bayes C even though most of the significant differences in accuracy between Bayesian regression models were negligible.
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 | 0.022 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".