ArticleThe plant genome2023
Genomic prediction with machine learning in sugarcane, a complex highly polyploid clonally propagated crop with substantial non-additive variation for key traits.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- From family trials to genomic mate allocation: statistical and genomic strategies to accelerate sugarcane genetic improvement.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Review
- Genetic dissection of cold tolerance across developmental stages in sorghum reveals stage-specific haplotypes and potential trade-offs.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- Using deep learning models as a genetic architecture for the simulation of breeding schemes.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Sugarcane Breeding in the Genomic Era: Integrative Strategies and Emerging Technologies.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Genomic prediction of feed efficiency in boars by deep learning.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Haplotype applications in genomic selection.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Ensemble AnalySis with Interpretable Genomic Prediction (EasiGP): Computational tool for interpreting ensembles of genomic prediction models.The plant genome · 2025Article
- Review
- Genomic prediction for sugarcane diseases including hybrid Bayesian-machine learning approaches.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Genomic prediction with machine learning in sugarcane, a complex highly polyploid clonally propagated crop with substantial non-additive variation for key traits.The plant genome · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sugarcane has a complex, highly polyploid genome with multi-species ancestry. Additive models for genomic prediction of clonal performance might not capture interactions between genes and alleles from different ploidies and ancestral species. As such, genomic prediction in sugarcane presents an interesting case for machine learning (ML) methods, which are purportedly able to deal with high levels of complexity in prediction. Here, we investigated deep learning (DL) neural networks, including multilayer networks (MLP) and convolution neural networks (CNN), and an ensemble machine learning approach, random forest (RF), for genomic prediction in sugarcane. The data set used was 2912 sugarcane clones, scored for 26,086 genome wide single nucleotide polymorphism markers, with final assessment trial data for total cane harvested (TCH), commercial cane sugar (CCS), and fiber content (Fiber). The clones in the latest trial (2017) were used as a validation set. We compared prediction accuracy of these methods to genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) extended to include dominance and epistatic effects. The prediction accuracies from GBLUP models were up to 0.37 for TCH, 0.43 for CCS, and 0.48 for Fiber, while the optimized ML models had prediction accuracies of 0.35 for TCH, 0.38 for CCS, and 0.48 for Fiber. Both RF and DL neural network models have comparable predictive ability with the additive GBLUP model but are less accurate than the extended GBLUP model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.