Invited review: Advances and applications of random regression models: From quantitative genetics to genomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important goal in animal breeding is to improve longitudinal traits; that is, traits recorded multiple times during an individual's lifetime or physiological cycle. Longitudinal traits were first genetically evaluated based on accumulated phenotypic expression, phenotypic expression at specific time points, or repeatability models. Until now, the genetic evaluation of longitudinal traits has mainly focused on using random regression models (RRM). Random regression models enable fitting random genetic and environmental effects over time, which results in higher accuracy of estimated breeding values compared with other statistical approaches. In addition, RRM provide insights about temporal variation of biological processes and the physiological implications underlying the studied traits. Despite the fact that genomic information has substantially contributed to increase the rates of genetic progress for a variety of economically important traits in several livestock species, less attention has been given to longitudinal traits in recent years. However, including genomic information to evaluate longitudinal traits using RRM is a feasible alternative to yield more accurate selection and culling decisions, because selection of young animals may be based on the complete pattern of the production curve with higher accuracy compared with the use of traditional parent average (i.e., without genomic information). Moreover, RRM can be used to estimate SNP effects over time in genome-wide association studies. Thus, by analyzing marker associations over time, regions with higher effects at specific points in time are more likely to be identified. Despite the advances in applications of RRM in genetic evaluations, more research is needed to successfully combine RRM and genomic information. Future research should provide a better understanding of the temporal variation of biological processes and their physiological implications underlying the longitudinal traits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".