MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159144092 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbab132

KCRR: a nonlinear machine learning with a modified genomic similarity matrix improved the genomic prediction efficiency

2021· article· en· W3159144092 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bingxing An, Mang Liang, Tianpeng Chang, Xinghai Duan, Lili Du, Lingyang Xu, Lupei Zhang, Xue Gao, Junya Li, Huijiang Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeef Cattle Research CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCosine similarityBest linear unbiased predictionSimilarity (geometry)Support vector machineHeritabilityKernel (algebra)Computer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsBiologyPattern recognition (psychology)GeneticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Combinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, advances in high-throughput sequencing benefit the increasing application of genomic prediction (GP) in breeding programs. In this research, we designed a Cosine kernel-based KRR named KCRR to perform GP. This paper assessed the prediction accuracies of 12 traits with various heritability and genetic architectures from four populations using the genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), BayesB, support vector regression (SVR), and KCRR. On the whole, KCRR performed stably for all traits of multiple species, indicating that the hypothesis of KCRR had the potential to be adapted to a wide range of genetic architectures. Moreover, we defined a modified genomic similarity matrix named Cosine similarity matrix (CS matrix). The results indicated that the accuracies between GBLUP_kinship and GBLUP_CS almost unanimously for all traits, but the computing efficiency has increased by an average of 20 times. Our research will be a significant promising strategy in future GP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriefings in BioinformaticsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207