↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of approaches for estimating the accuracy of genomic prediction in plant breeding

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of approaches for estimating the accuracy of genomic prediction in plant breeding
Published in
BMC Genomics, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-14-860
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sidi Boubacar Ould Estaghvirou, Joseph O Ogutu, Torben Schulz-Streeck, Carsten Knaak, Milena Ouzunova, Andres Gordillo, Hans-Peter Piepho

Abstract

In genomic prediction, an important measure of accuracy is the correlation between the predicted and the true breeding values. Direct computation of this quantity for real datasets is not possible, because the true breeding value is unknown. Instead, the correlation between the predicted breeding values and the observed phenotypic values, called predictive ability, is often computed. In order to indirectly estimate predictive accuracy, this latter correlation is usually divided by an estimate of the square root of heritability. In this study we use simulation to evaluate estimates of predictive accuracy for seven methods, four (1 to 4) of which use an estimate of heritability to divide predictive ability computed by cross-validation. Between them the seven methods cover balanced and unbalanced datasets as well as correlated and uncorrelated genotypes. We propose one new indirect method (4) and two direct methods (5 and 6) for estimating predictive accuracy and compare their performances and those of four other existing approaches (three indirect (1 to 3) and one direct (7)) with simulated true predictive accuracy as the benchmark and with each other.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 120 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Student > Master 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Professor 6 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 74%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Mathematics 5 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 20 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2013.
All research outputs
#17,682,757
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#7,537
of 10,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,404
of 306,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#290
of 447 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,630 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 447 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.