↓ Skip to main content

Efficient strategies for leave-one-out cross validation for genomic best linear unbiased prediction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
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
Efficient strategies for leave-one-out cross validation for genomic best linear unbiased prediction
Published in
Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40104-017-0164-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hao Cheng, Dorian J. Garrick, Rohan L. Fernando

Abstract

A random multiple-regression model that simultaneously fit all allele substitution effects for additive markers or haplotypes as uncorrelated random effects was proposed for Best Linear Unbiased Prediction, using whole-genome data. Leave-one-out cross validation can be used to quantify the predictive ability of a statistical model. Naive application of Leave-one-out cross validation is computationally intensive because the training and validation analyses need to be repeated n times, once for each observation. Efficient Leave-one-out cross validation strategies are presented here, requiring little more effort than a single analysis. Efficient Leave-one-out cross validation strategies is 786 times faster than the naive application for a simulated dataset with 1,000 observations and 10,000 markers and 99 times faster with 1,000 observations and 100 markers. These efficiencies relative to the naive approach using the same model will increase with increases in the number of observations. Efficient Leave-one-out cross validation strategies are presented here, requiring little more effort than a single analysis.

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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 24%
Engineering 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 31 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology
#307
of 904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,683
of 324,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 904 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 324,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.