Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41898849›Full record

ArticleGenes2026

Comparative Accuracy of Machine Learning and GBLUP for Predicting Genomic Estimated Breeding Values in Chickens.

Haoxiang Chai, Yuqi Yang, Dan Wang, Chao Ning, Xuguang Zhang, Wenwen Wang, Qin Zhang, Haigang Bao, Hui Tang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Haoxiang ChaiShandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Livestock Germplasm Innovation & Utilization, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China.
Yuqi YangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Dan WangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Livestock Germplasm Innovation & Utilization, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China.
Chao NingShandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Livestock Germplasm Innovation & Utilization, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China.
Xuguang ZhangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Livestock Germplasm Innovation & Utilization, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China.
Wenwen WangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Livestock Germplasm Innovation & Utilization, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China.
Qin ZhangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Livestock Germplasm Innovation & Utilization, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China.
Haigang BaoNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4591-3957
Hui TangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory for Livestock Germplasm Innovation & Utilization, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an 271018, China.

Funding

Key R&D Program of Shandong Province;Shandong Modern Agricultural Industry & Technology System;Shandong-Chongqing Science and Technology Cooperation Project 2022LZGCQY016;SDAIT-11-02;2023LYXZ027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) holds great promise for genomic breeding value prediction in livestock and poultry, yet its application in layer breeding remains limited.

methodsIn this study, we used whole-genome resequencing data from 834 Wenshui Luhua Green-Shelled (WLGS) laying hens to predict genomic breeding values for eight egg production and egg quality traits using multilayer perceptron (MLP), random forest (RF), and genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP). Model performance was evaluated via 10-fold cross-validation, and the effects of data type and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) density were examined.

resultsHeritability analysis indicated moderate heritability for egg number (EN) at 0.327. Egg weight-related traits (EW-30W, EW-40W, and EHD-40W) exhibited high heritability (0.570-0.631), while eggshell strength (ESS-40W) and thickness (EST-40W) showed moderate heritability at 0.228 and 0.220, respectively. Model comparisons revealed that RF performed best for egg shape index (ESI-30W, 0.395) and most egg quality traits, whereas GBLUP yielded optimal results for egg weight traits, achieving prediction accuracies of 0.392 for EW-30W and 0.432 for EW-40W. Whole-genome resequencing data consistently outperformed 50K chip data across all models, with GBLUP improving EW-40W prediction accuracy by 24.9%. SNP density analysis further showed that GBLUP remained stable under low-density conditions, while MLP and RF progressively improved with increasing density, with RF demonstrating the most pronounced advantage at high densities.

conclusionsIn summary, the GBLUP model is suitable for traits with high heritability and low-density marker scenarios, while the RF model demonstrates significant predictive advantages for egg production and specific egg quality traits under high-density conditions. This study provides scientific basis for model selection in the genomic selection program for laying hens.

Indexed as

BreedingChickensGenomicsMachine LearningAnimalsEggsFemaleGenomeModels, GeneticMultilayer PerceptronsPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRandom Forestegg-laying chickenGEBVgenomic selectionmachine learningpredictionSNP density

Identifiers

PMID41898849
PMCPMC13026392

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.