Genetic prediction of quantitative traits: a machine learner's guide focused on height

Lucie Bourguignon, Caroline Weis, Catherine R. Jutzeler, Michael Adamer
10/6/2023
cs.LGq-bio.GN

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Machine learning and deep learning have been celebrating many successes in the application to biological problems, especially in the domain of protein folding. Another equally complex and important question has received relatively little attention by the machine learning community, namely the one of prediction of complex traits from genetics. Tackling this problem requires in-depth knowledge of the related genetics literature and awareness of various subtleties associated with genetic data. In this guide, we provide an overview for the machine learning community on current state of the art models and associated subtleties which need to be taken into consideration when developing new models for phenotype prediction. We use height as an example of a continuous-valued phenotype and provide an introduction to benchmark datasets, confounders, feature selection, and common metrics.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{bourguignon2023genetic,
  title  = {Genetic prediction of quantitative traits: a machine learner's guide focused on height},
  author = {Lucie Bourguignon and Caroline Weis and Catherine R. Jutzeler and Michael Adamer},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2310.04028},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04028v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2310.04028.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2310.04028)

Discussion