PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 22, 2026Agronomy1 citationsOpen Access

Stacking Ensemble Learning for Genomic Prediction Under Complex Genetic Architectures

View Full Paper
MCMaurício de Oliveira CeleriMNMoyses NascimentoANAna Carolina Campana Nascimento

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of stacking ensembles for genomic prediction across various genetic architectures.
  • Evaluated different stacking configurations for genomic prediction.
  • Conducted simulations covering additive, dominance, and epistatic traits.
  • Applied a 5-fold cross-validation scheme to assess predictive ability.
  • Analyzed results from diverse base learners and meta-learners.
  • Stacking approach showed superior predictive ability across all tested scenarios.
  • Achieved an 83% gain in complex architectures (100 QTLs, h2 = 0.3) over the best individual model.
  • Observed a 27.59% gain in oligogenic scenarios with epistasis (10 QTLs, h2 = 0.6).

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) estimates the GEBV from genome-wide markers to reduce generation intervals and optimize germplasm selection, which is particularly advantageous for high-cost or late-expressed traits. While models like GBLUP are popular, they assume a polygenic architecture. In contrast, the Bayesian alphabet and machine learning (ML) can accommodate other types of genetic architectures. Given that no single model is universally optimal, stacking ensembles, which train a meta-model using predictions from diverse base learners, emerge as a compelling solution. However, the application of stacking in GS often overlooks non-additive effects. This study evaluated different stacking configurations for genomic prediction across 10 simulated traits, covering additive, dominance, and epistatic genetic architectures. A 5-fold cross-validation scheme was used to assess predictive ability and other evaluation metrics. The stacking approach demonstrated superior predictive ability in all scenarios. Gains were especially pronounced in complex architectures (100 QTLs, h2 = 0.3), reaching an 83% increment over the best individual model (BayesA with dominance), and also in oligogenic scenarios with epistasis (10 QTLs, h2 = 0.6), with a 27.59% gain. The success of stacking was attributed to two key strategies: base learner selection and the use of robust meta-learners (such as principal component or penalized regression) that effectively handled multicollinearity.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Celeri et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6971bd6a642b1836717e21f2https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy16020241
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Genomic prediction of blood biomarkers of metabolic disorders in Holstein cattle using parametric and nonparametric models2024 · 11 citations
  2. 2Ensemble learning for integrative prediction of genetic values with genomic variants2024 · 9 citations
  3. 3Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps2001 · 8,095 citations
  4. 4Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning2000 · 8,068 citations
  5. 5Stacked generalization1992 · 7,794 citations