Implementing within‐cross genomic prediction to reduce oat breeding costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A barrier to the adoption of genomic prediction in small breeding programs is the initial cost of genotyping material. Although decreasing, marker costs are usually higher than field trial costs. In this study we demonstrate the utility of stratifying a narrow-base biparental oat population genotyped with a modest number of markers to employ genomic prediction at early and later generations. We also show that early generation genotyping data can reduce the number of lines for later phenotyping based on selections of siblings to progress. Using sets of small families selected at an early generation could enable the use of genomic prediction for adaptation to multiple target environments at an early stage in the breeding program. In addition, we demonstrate that mixed marker data can be effectively integrated to combine cheap dominant marker data (including legacy data) with more expensive but higher density codominant marker data in order to make within generation and between lineage predictions based on genotypic information. Taken together, our results indicate that small programs can test and initiate genomic predictions using sets of stratified, narrow-base populations and incorporating low density legacy genotyping data. This can then be scaled to include higher density markers and a broadened population base.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".