Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40606661›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025

Benchmarking of feed-forward neural network models for genomic prediction of quantitative traits in pigs.

Junjian Wang, Francesco Tiezzi, Yijian Huang, Christian Maltecca, Jicai Jiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Which RJournal of human genetics · 2026
    Article
  2. Artificial intelligence in animal breeding and genetics: applications, opportunities, and challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

5 authors.

Junjian WangDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Francesco TiezziDepartment of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Yijian HuangSmithfield Premium Genetics, Rose Hill, NC, United States.
Christian MalteccaDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Jicai JiangDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial neural networks are machine learning models that have been applied to various genomic problems, with the ability to learn non-linear relationships and model high-dimensional data. These advanced modeling capabilities make them promising candidates for genomic prediction by potentially capturing the intricate relationships between genetic variants and phenotypes. Despite these theoretical advantages, neural networks have shown inconsistent performance across previous genomic prediction research, and limited studies have evaluated their performance and feasibility specifically for pig genomic predictions using large-scale data. We evaluated the predictive performance of feed-forward neural network (FFNN) models implemented in TensorFlow with architectures ranging from single-layer (no hidden layers) to four-layer structures (three hidden layers). These FFNN models were compared with five linear methods, including GBLUP, LDAK-BOLT, BayesR, SLEMM-WW, and scikit-learn's ridge regression. The evaluation utilized data from six quantitative traits: off-test body weight (WT), off-test back fat thickness (BF), off-test loin muscle depth (MS), number of piglets born alive (NBA), number of piglets born dead (NBD), and number of piglets weaned (NW). We also assessed the computational efficiency of FFNN models on both CPU and GPU. The benchmarking employed repeated random subsampling validation with sample sizes ranging from 3,290 individuals for reproductive traits to over 26,000 individuals for production traits, using data from a total of 27,481 genotyped pigs. Hyperband tuning was used to optimize the hyper-parameters and select the best model for each structure. Results showed that FFNN models consistently underperformed compared to linear methods across all architectures tested. The one-layer structure yielded the best predictive accuracy among the FFNN approaches. Of the five linear methods, SLEMM-WW demonstrated the best balance of computational efficiency and predictive ability. GPUs offered significant computational efficiency gains for multi-layer FFNN models compared to CPUs, though FFNN models remained more computationally demanding than most linear methods. In conclusion, FFNN models with up to four layers did not improve genomic predictions compared to routine linear methods for pig quantitative traits.

Indexed as

complex traitsdeep learningduroc pigsgenomic predictionpredictive ability

Identifiers

PMID40606661
PMCPMC12213717

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.