Using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient as the sole metric to measure the accuracy of quantitative trait prediction: is it sufficient?

How to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative trait prediction is crucial to choose the best model among several possible choices in plant breeding. Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC), serving as a metric for quantifying the strength of the linear association between two variables, is widely used to evaluate the accuracy of the quantitative trait prediction models, and generally performs well in most circumstances. However, PCC may not always offer a comprehensive view of predictive accuracy, especially in cases involving nonlinear relationships or complex dependencies in machine learning-based methods. It has been found that many papers on quantitative trait prediction solely use PCC as a single metric to evaluate the accuracy of their models, which is insufficient and limited from a formal perspective. This study addresses this crucial issue by presenting a typical example and conducting a comparative analysis of PCC and nine other evaluation metrics using four traditional methods and four machine learning-based methods, thereby contributing to the improvement of practical applicability and reliability of plant quantitative trait prediction models. It is recommended to employ PCC in conjunction with other evaluation metrics in a targeted manner based on specific application scenarios to reduce the likelihood of drawing misleading conclusions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Plant Science
Published
2024-12-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1480463
Citations
19
Primary Topic
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.46

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient as the sole metric to measure the accuracy of quantitative trait prediction: is it sufficient?

Shouhui Pan, Kaiyi Wang, Zhongqiang Liu, Jinlong Li et al.
19 citations
Frontiers in Plant Science
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
10.46
article

Using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient as the sole metric to measure the accuracy of quantitative trait prediction: is it sufficient?

Shouhui Pan, Kaiyi Wang, Zhongqiang Liu, Jinlong Li, Xiangyu Zhao, Dongfeng Zhang, Yanyun Han
article en
19 citations

Abstract

How to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative trait prediction is crucial to choose the best model among several possible choices in plant breeding. Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC), serving as a metric for quantifying the strength of the linear association between two variables, is widely used to evaluate the accuracy of the quantitative trait prediction models, and generally performs well in most circumstances. However, PCC may not always offer a comprehensive view of predictive accuracy, especially in cases involving nonlinear relationships or complex dependencies in machine learning-based methods. It has been found that many papers on quantitative trait prediction solely use PCC as a single metric to evaluate the accuracy of their models, which is insufficient and limited from a formal perspective. This study addresses this crucial issue by presenting a typical example and conducting a comparative analysis of PCC and nine other evaluation metrics using four traditional methods and four machine learning-based methods, thereby contributing to the improvement of practical applicability and reliability of plant quantitative trait prediction models. It is recommended to employ PCC in conjunction with other evaluation metrics in a targeted manner based on specific application scenarios to reduce the likelihood of drawing misleading conclusions.

Frontiers in Plant ScienceVol. 15
National Engineering Research Center for Information Technology in Agriculture (CN)
National Science and Technology Major Project
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
10.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.