Using machine learning to realize genetic site screening and genomic prediction of productive traits in pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic prediction, which is based on solving linear mixed-model (LMM) equations, is the most popular method for predicting breeding values or phenotypic performance for economic traits in livestock. With the need to further improve the performance of genomic prediction, nonlinear methods have been considered as an alternative and promising approach. The excellent ability to predict phenotypes in animal husbandry has been demonstrated by machine learning (ML) approaches, which have been rapidly developed. To investigate the feasibility and reliability of implementing genomic prediction using nonlinear models, the performances of genomic predictions for pig productive traits using the linear genomic selection model and nonlinear machine learning models were compared. Then, to reduce the high-dimensional features of genome sequence data, different machine learning algorithms, including the random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) and convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithms, were used to perform genomic feature selection as well as genomic prediction on reduced feature genome data. All of the analyses were processed on two real pig datasets: the published PIC pig dataset and a dataset comprising data from a national pig nucleus herd in Chifeng, North China. Overall, the accuracies of predicted phenotypic performance for traits T1, T2, T3 and T5 in the PIC dataset and average daily gain (ADG) in the Chifeng dataset were higher using the ML methods than the LMM method, while those for trait T4 in the PIC dataset and total number of piglets born (TNB) in the Chifeng dataset were slightly lower using the ML methods than the LMM method. Among all the different ML algorithms, SVM was the most appropriate for genomic prediction. For the genomic feature selection experiment, the most stable and most accurate results across different algorithms were achieved using XGBoost in combination with the SVM algorithm. Through feature selection, the number of genomic markers can be reduced to 1 in 20, while the predictive performance on some traits can even be improved compared to using the full genome data. Finally, we developed a new tool that can be used to execute combined XGBoost and SVM algorithms to realize genomic feature selection and phenotypic prediction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".