MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411250030 · doi:10.1002/tpg2.70057

Environment ensemble models for genomic prediction in common bean ( <i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i> L.)

2025· article· en· W4411250030 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabella Chiaravallotti, Owen Pauptit, Valerio Hoyos‐Villegas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Genome · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetics and Plant Breeding
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsPhaseolusBiologyComputational biologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For important food crops such as the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, L.), global demand continues to outpace the rate of genetic gain for quantitative traits. In this study, we leveraged the multi-environment trial (MET) dataset from the cooperative dry bean nursery (CDBN) to investigate the use of ensemble models for genomic prediction. This set spans 70 locations and 30 years, and accounts for over 150 phenotypes and hundreds of genotypes sequenced for 1.2 million single nucleotide polymorphism markers. We tested three models (linear regression, ridge regression, and neural networks). Each of the three models was implemented using three different approaches: (1) combining all data into one model (singular model), (2) all available single locations were used to train individual submodels comprising one ensemble model (ensemble model), and (3) optimized sets of single locations were used to train individual submodels comprising one ensemble model (optimized ensemble model). The optimized ensemble approach worked best for low-variance locations because the model variance was reduced by averaging across submodels in the ensemble. For models with low prediction accuracy, the ensemble approach can increase accuracy. In certain locations, prediction accuracy was able to overcome narrow-sense heritability, indicating that genomic selection is more efficient than phenotypic selection in these locations. This study indicates that breeding program collaboration can be a way to bypass the bottleneck of low data volume, as pooled data from the CDBN MET produced prediction accuracies of 0.70 for days to flowering, 0.54 for days to maturity, 0.95 for seed weight, and 0.67 for seed yield in individual locations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant GenomeSame topicGenetics and Plant BreedingFrench-language works237,207