Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

CV-α: Designing Validations Sets To Increase The Precision And Enable Multiple Comparison Tests In Genomic Prediction

Rafael Massahiro Yassue, José Felipe Gonzaga Sabadin, Giovanni Galli, Filipe Couto Alves, Roberto Fritsche-Neto

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy Visualize in Litmaps
Reduce the time it takes to create your bibliography by a factor of 10 by using the world’s favourite reference manager
Time to take this seriously.
Get Citationsy
AbstractUsually, the comparison among genomic prediction models is based on validation schemes as Repeated Random Subsampling (RRS) or K-fold cross-validation. Nevertheless, the design of training and validation sets has a high effect on the way and subjectiveness that we compare models. Those procedures cited above have an overlap across replicates that might cause an overestimated estimate and lack of residuals independence due to resampling issues and might cause less accurate results. Furthermore, posthoc tests, such as ANOVA, are not recommended due to assumption unfulfilled regarding residuals independence. Thus, we propose a new way to sample observations to build training and validation sets based on cross-validation alpha-based design (CV-α). The CV-α was meant to create several scenarios of validation (replicates x folds), regardless of the number of treatments. Using CV-α, the number of genotypes in the same fold across replicates was much lower than K-fold, indicating higher residual independence. Therefore, based on the CV-α results, as proof of concept, via ANOVA, we could compare the proposed methodology to RRS and K-fold, applying four genomic prediction models with a simulated and real dataset. Concerning the predictive ability and bias, all validation methods showed similar performance. However, regarding the mean squared error and coefficient of variation, the CV-α method presented the best performance under the evaluated scenarios. Moreover, as it has no additional cost nor complexity, it is more reliable and allows the use of non-subjective methods to compare models and factors. Therefore, CV-α can be considered a more precise validation methodology for model selection.