Improving predictive ability in sparse testing designs in soybean populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of high-dimensional genomic data and advancements in genome-based prediction models (GP) have revolutionized and contributed to accelerated genetic gains in soybean breeding programs. GP-based sparse testing is a promising concept that allows increasing the testing capacity of genotypes in environments, of genotypes or environments at a fixed cost, or a substantial reduction of costs at a fixed testing capacity. This study represents the first attempt to implement GP-based sparse testing in soybeans by evaluating different training set compositions going from non-overlapped RILs until almost the other extreme of having same set of genotypes observed across environments for different training set sizes. A total of 1,755 recombinant inbred lines (RILs) tested in nine environments were used in this study. RILs were derived from 39 bi-parental populations of the Soybean Nested Association Mapping (NAM) project. The predictive abilities of various models and training set sizes and compositions were investigated. Training compositions included a range of ratios of overlapping (O-RILs) and non-overlapping (NO-RILs) RILs across environments, as well as a methodology to maximize or minimize the genetic diversity in a fixed-size sample. Reducing the training set size compromised predictive ability in most training set compositions. Overall, maximizing the genetic diversity within the training set and the inclusion of O-RILs increased prediction accuracy given a fixed training set size; however, the most complex model was less affected by these factors. More testing environments in the early stages of the breeding pipeline can provide a more comprehensive assessment of genotype stability and adaptation which are fundamental for the precise selection of superior genotypes adapted to a wide range of environments.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".