<?xml version='1.0'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" >
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[BOL: Can AI Decide Which Genomic Model to Trust?]]></title>
	<link>https://bioinformaticsonline.com/blog/view/45376/can-ai-decide-which-genomic-model-to-trust?</link>
	<atom:link href="https://bioinformaticsonline.com/blog/view/45376/can-ai-decide-which-genomic-model-to-trust?" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
	
	<item>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">https://bioinformaticsonline.com/blog/view/45376/can-ai-decide-which-genomic-model-to-trust</guid>
	<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 03:10:06 -0500</pubDate>
	<link>https://bioinformaticsonline.com/blog/view/45376/can-ai-decide-which-genomic-model-to-trust</link>
	<title><![CDATA[Can AI Decide Which Genomic Model to Trust?]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[<p>Imagine you're sitting with a genomic dataset of some sort (thousands of SNPs), a set of plant phenotypes and the one very simple question: can we predict what these plants will become? The first thing you'd probably do is reach for machine learning. That's where the real problem lies. Which model do we use? GBLUP? Bayesian ridge? LASSO? Random Forest? A neural net? How do we know that the model that looks so good on a single cross-validation split will still be good tomorrow? In genomic prediction we're often just left to pick these things manually. The problem is that a single cross-validation split can make a model look incredibly good when in reality it's not. This is the problem that Nagendra Pratap Singh and Venugopal Mendu have set out to solve with GenoBridge (https://github.com/nps-genomics/GenoBridge), a sample size adaptive machine learning pipeline designed to reduce the amount of human guesswork involved. The paper (Plant Methods, September 2026) describes a pipeline that instead of asking the user to pick a model and parameters in advance, adapts the analysis based on the size of the sample. It tests multiple models and evaluates them via cross-validation. The premise is simple but powerful: don't just ask if a model can predict, ask if the model can predict when the data it's being tested on are genuinely unseen. GenoBridge therefore places a strong emphasis on cross-validated R2 as well as correlation, using the reproducibility of the predictive signal as a gate before moving into GWAS. In other words prediction is the first checkpoint: if the genomic signal can't generalise then we shouldn't be trusting the downstream association results. Once a trait has passed that checkpoint it proceeds into kinship based mixed model GWAS to provide a bridge between prediction and biological interpretation.</p><p>The authors tested the pipeline across 5 datasets from 4 species, spanning an almost 80-fold difference in sample size (from 136 to over 10,700 individuals) and found that the predictive accuracy was within 0.02-0.05 of the standard GBLUP and Bayesian ridge regression approaches, again without the user having to manually select a model. More importantly the pipeline was able to recover known biological signals (FLC, FT and DOG1 in Arabidopsis, Waxy and GW5 in rice and Glu-D1 in wheat) and produced well calibrated association statistics. The most interesting observation though is that prediction accuracy and biological association are not necessarily the same thing. Two traits with identical predictive performance could have association significance that varied by over 60 orders of magnitude. So knowing how well we can predict a trait doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the distribution of the genetic architecture of that trait across the genome. That's where GenoBridge is actually of value. It's not just another machine learning pipeline. It's an example of an adaptive analytical workflow that doesn't just throw algorithms at the data but asks whether the data actually justify the next analytical step. As the amount of genomic data we generate continues to grow and the number of computational methods available to us increases, the bottleneck may not be in finding the right algorithm at all. The bottleneck may be in deciding which algorithm we can actually trust.</p><p>GenoBridge offers a potential solution: let the data tell you which model is appropriate, validate the prediction rigorously and only then move from prediction to biological discovery. That may be where computational genomics is heading. Rather than a future in which there is one single 'best' model, we may be heading towards a future of intelligent systems that know when a model is appropriate, when a result is reliable and when the biology is actually telling us something that we should be listening to.</p><p>More at&nbsp;https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13007-026-01596-5</p>]]></description>
	<dc:creator>BioStar</dc:creator>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>