Machine Learning-Aided Optimization of In Vitro Tetraploid Induction in Cannabis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyploidy, characterized by an increase in the number of whole sets of chromosomes in an organism, offers a promising avenue for cannabis improvement. Polyploid cannabis plants often exhibit altered morphological, physiological, and biochemical characteristics with a number of potential benefits compared to their diploid counterparts. The optimization of polyploidy induction, such as the level of antimitotic agents and exposure duration, is essential for successful polyploidization to maximize survival and tetraploid rates while minimizing the number of chimeric mixoploids. In this study, three classification-based machine learning algorithms-probabilistic neural network (PNN), support vector classification (SVC), and k-nearest neighbors (KNNs)-were used to model ploidy levels based on oryzalin concentration and exposure time. The results indicated that PNN outperformed both KNNs and SVC. Subsequently, PNN was combined with a genetic algorithm (GA) to optimize oryzalin concentration and exposure time to maximize tetraploid induction rates. The PNN-GA results predicted that the optimal conditions were a concentration of 32.98 µM of oryzalin for 17.92 h. A validation study testing these conditions confirmed the accuracy of the PNN-GA model, resulting in 93.75% tetraploid induction, with the remaining 6.25% identified as mixoploids. Additionally, the evaluation of morphological traits showed that tetraploid plants were more vigorous and had larger leaf sizes compared to diploid or mixoploid plants in vitro.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".