MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413126024 · doi:10.1109/tcbbio.2025.3596744

GPFN: Prior-Data Fitted Networks for Genomic Prediction

2025· article· en· W4413126024 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan Ubbens, Ian Stavness, Andrew Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsComputer scienceComputational biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic Prediction (GP) methods predict the breeding value of unphenotyped individuals in order to select parental candidates breeding populations of livestock and crop plants. Among models for GP, classical linear models have remained consistently popular, while more complex nonlinear methods such as deep neural networks have shown comparable accuracy at best. In this work, we propose the Genomic Prior-Data Fitted Network (GPFN) as a new paradigm for GP. GPFNs perform amortized Bayesian inference by simulating hundreds of thousands or millions of plant or animal populations. This allows GPFNs to be deployed without requiring any training or tuning, providing predictions in a single inference pass. On three populations of plants across two different crop species, GPFNs perform significantly better than the linear baseline on 13 out of 16 traits. On a challenging between-families structured prediction task on a third crop species, the GPFN matches the performance of the linear baseline while outperforming it in one location. GPFNs represent a completely new direction for the field of genomic prediction, and have the potential to unlock levels of selection accuracy not possible with existing methods, especially in diverse populations.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207