↓ Skip to main content

Walking through the statistical black boxes of plant breeding

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical and Applied Genetics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
Title
Walking through the statistical black boxes of plant breeding
Published in
Theoretical and Applied Genetics, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00122-016-2750-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alencar Xavier, William M. Muir, Bruce Craig, Katy Martin Rainey

Abstract

The main statistical procedures in plant breeding are based on Gaussian process and can be computed through mixed linear models. Intelligent decision making relies on our ability to extract useful information from data to help us achieve our goals more efficiently. Many plant breeders and geneticists perform statistical analyses without understanding the underlying assumptions of the methods or their strengths and pitfalls. In other words, they treat these statistical methods (software and programs) like black boxes. Black boxes represent complex pieces of machinery with contents that are not fully understood by the user. The user sees the inputs and outputs without knowing how the outputs are generated. By providing a general background on statistical methodologies, this review aims (1) to introduce basic concepts of machine learning and its applications to plant breeding; (2) to link classical selection theory to current statistical approaches; (3) to show how to solve mixed models and extend their application to pedigree-based and genomic-based prediction; and (4) to clarify how the algorithms of genome-wide association studies work, including their assumptions and limitations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 180 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 28%
Researcher 37 20%
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 30 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 120 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 7%
Computer Science 7 4%
Engineering 4 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 36 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,128,308
of 25,311,095 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical and Applied Genetics
#128
of 3,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,255
of 373,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical and Applied Genetics
#6
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,311,095 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,756 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 373,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.