MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407092362 · doi:10.3390/ani15030408

Performance Comparison of Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction and Four Machine Learning Models for Estimating Genomic Breeding Values in Working Dogs

2025· article· en· W4407092362 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph A. Thorsrud, Katy M. Evans, Kyle C. Quigley, Krishnamoorthy Srikanth, Heather J. Huson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation
KeywordsHeritabilityBest linear unbiased predictionTraitBiologyStatisticsPopulationMachine learningGeneticsMathematicsComputer scienceDemographySelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the efficacy of various genomic prediction models—Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (GBLUP), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), and Multilayer Perceptron (MLP)—in predicting genomic breeding values (gEBVs). The phenotypic data include three binary health traits (anodontia, distichiasis, oral papillomatosis) and one behavioral trait (distraction) in a population of guide dogs. These traits impact the potential for success in guide dogs and are therefore routinely characterized but were chosen based on differences in heritability and case counts specifically to assess gEBV model performance. Utilizing a dataset from The Seeing Eye organization, which includes German Shepherds (n = 482), Golden Retrievers (n = 239), Labrador Retrievers (n = 1188), and Labrador and Golden Retriever crosses (n = 111), we assessed model performance within and across different breeds, trait heritability, case counts, and SNP marker densities. Our results indicate that no significant differences were found in model performance across varying heritabilities, case counts, or SNP densities, with all models performing similarly. Given its lack of need for parameter optimization, GBLUP was the most efficient model. Distichiasis showed the highest overall predictive performance, likely due to its higher heritability, while anodontia and distraction exhibited moderate accuracy, and oral papillomatosis had the lowest accuracy, correlating with its low heritability. These findings underscore that lower density SNP datasets can effectively construct gEBVs, suggesting that high-cost, high-density genotyping may not always be necessary. Additionally, the similar performance of all models indicates that simpler models like GBLUP, which requires less fine tuning, may be sufficient for genomic prediction in canine breeding programs. The research highlights the importance of standardized phenotypic assessments and carefully constructed reference populations to optimize the utility of genomic selection in canine breeding programs.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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