Do not benchmark phenomic prediction against genomic prediction accuracy

Abstract Phenomic selection is a new paradigm in plant breeding that uses high‐throughput phenotyping technologies and machine learning models to predict traits of new individuals and make selections. This can allow breeders to evaluate more plants in higher throughput more accurately, resulting in faster rates of gain and reduced labor costs. However, phenomic prediction models are frequently benchmarked against genomic prediction models using cross‐validation to demonstrate their usefulness to breeders. We argue that this is inappropriate for two reasons: (1) differences in the accuracy statistic measured by cross‐validation do not reliably indicate differences in the accuracy parameter of the breeder's equation, which we show analytically and through reanalysis of data from three representative phenomic prediction studies and (2) phenomic and genomic selection tools influence other parameters of the breeder's equation, so comparing accuracy, even if done properly, is insufficient to advocate for one approach over the other. We conclude that phenomic selection may be useful, but comparisons of accuracy between genomic prediction and phenomic prediction models are not.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Plant Phenome Journal
Published
2025-07-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ppj2.70029
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.90

Funders

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

Do not benchmark phenomic prediction against genomic prediction accuracy

Mitchell J. Feldmann, Fangyi Wang, Daniel E. Runcie
6 citations
The Plant Phenome Journal
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
10.90
article

Do not benchmark phenomic prediction against genomic prediction accuracy

Mitchell J. Feldmann, Fangyi Wang, Daniel E. Runcie
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Abstract Phenomic selection is a new paradigm in plant breeding that uses high‐throughput phenotyping technologies and machine learning models to predict traits of new individuals and make selections. This can allow breeders to evaluate more plants in higher throughput more accurately, resulting in faster rates of gain and reduced labor costs. However, phenomic prediction models are frequently benchmarked against genomic prediction models using cross‐validation to demonstrate their usefulness to breeders. We argue that this is inappropriate for two reasons: (1) differences in the accuracy statistic measured by cross‐validation do not reliably indicate differences in the accuracy parameter of the breeder's equation, which we show analytically and through reanalysis of data from three representative phenomic prediction studies and (2) phenomic and genomic selection tools influence other parameters of the breeder's equation, so comparing accuracy, even if done properly, is insufficient to advocate for one approach over the other. We conclude that phenomic selection may be useful, but comparisons of accuracy between genomic prediction and phenomic prediction models are not.

The Plant Phenome JournalVol. 8(1)
University of California, Davis (US)
U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Strawberry Commission, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
10.90
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.

Do not benchmark phenomic prediction against genomic prediction accuracy — Mitchell J. Feldmann, Fangyi Wang, et al. · The Plant Phenome Journal (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS