Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36484148›Full record

ArticleThe plant genome2023

Comparing artificial-intelligence techniques with state-of-the-art parametric prediction models for predicting soybean traits.

Susweta Ray, Diego Jarquin, Reka Howard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The plant genome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Non-linear kernel methods for genomic prediction of soybean yield and quality in multi-environment trials.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. AdaptiveGS: an explainable genomic selection framework based on adaptive stacking ensemble machine learning.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susweta RayDep. of Statistics, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA.
Diego JarquinDep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5098-2060
Reka HowardDep. of Statistics, Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA.
University of Nebraska–Lincoln · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] is a significant source of protein and oil and is also widely used as animal feed. Thus, developing lines that are superior in terms of yield, protein, and oil content is important to feed the ever-growing population. As opposed to high-cost phenotyping, genotyping is both cost and time efficient for breeders because evaluating new lines in different environments (location-year combinations) can be costly. Several genomic prediction (GP) methods have been developed to use the marker and environment data effectively to predict the yield or other relevant phenotypic traits of crops. Our study compares a conventional GP method (genomic best linear unbiased predictor [GBLUP]), a kernel method (Gaussian kernel [GK]), an artificial-intelligence (AI) method (deep learning [DL]), and a hybrid method that corresponds to the emulation of a DL model using a kernel method (an arc-cosine kernel [AK]) in terms of their prediction accuracies for predicting grain yield, oil, and protein using data from the soybean nested association mapping experiment (1,379 genotypes tested in six environments, all genotypes in all environments). The relative performance of the four methods varied with the response variable and whether the model includes the genotype × environmental interaction (G×E) effects or not. The GBLUP consistently showed better performances, whereas GK and AK followed a similar pattern to GBLUP and DL performed slightly worse than the other three methods in most of the cases; however, this may also be attributed to suboptimal hyperparameters. The DL method performed particularly worse than the other three methods in presence of the G×E effects.

Indexed as

Gene-Environment InteractionGlycine maxAnimalsGenome, PlantIntelligenceModels, GeneticTriticum

Identifiers

PMID36484148
PMCPMC12807184
OpenAlexW4310947830

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.