Integrated model for genomic prediction under additive and non-additive genetic architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from genome-wide molecular markers, genomic selection procedures have proved useful for estimating breeding values and phenotypic prediction. The link between an individual genotype and phenotype has been modelled using a number of parametric methods to estimate individual breeding value. It has been observed that parametric methods perform satisfactorily only when the system under study has additive genetic architecture. To capture non-additive (dominance and epistasis) effects, nonparametric approaches have also been developed; however, they typically fall short of capturing additive effects. The idea behind this study is to select the most appropriate model from each parametric and nonparametric category and build an integrated model that can incorporate the best features of both models. It was observed from the results of the current study that GBLUP performed admirably under additive architecture, while SVM's performance in non-additive architecture was found to be encouraging. A robust model for genomic prediction has been developed in light of these findings, which can handle both additive and epistatic effects simultaneously by minimizing their error variance. The developed integrated model has been assessed using standard evaluation measures like predictive ability and error variance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".