Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21540409›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2011

Survey of branch support methods demonstrates accuracy, power, and robustness of fast likelihood-based approximation schemes.

Maria Anisimova, Manuel Gil, Jean-François Dufayard, Christophe Dessimoz, Olivier Gascuel

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 577 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
577citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

577 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Genomic Characterization of a NovelInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Fine-tuning neuron number:bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

517 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maria AnisimovaDepartment of Computer Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzerland. maria.anisimova@inf.ethz.ch
Manuel Gil
Jean-François Dufayard
Christophe Dessimoz
Olivier Gascuel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phylogenetic inference and evaluating support for inferred relationships is at the core of many studies testing evolutionary hypotheses. Despite the popularity of nonparametric bootstrap frequencies and Bayesian posterior probabilities, the interpretation of these measures of tree branch support remains a source of discussion. Furthermore, both methods are computationally expensive and become prohibitive for large data sets. Recent fast approximate likelihood-based measures of branch supports (approximate likelihood ratio test [aLRT] and Shimodaira-Hasegawa [SH]-aLRT) provide a compelling alternative to these slower conventional methods, offering not only speed advantages but also excellent levels of accuracy and power. Here we propose an additional method: a Bayesian-like transformation of aLRT (aBayes). Considering both probabilistic and frequentist frameworks, we compare the performance of the three fast likelihood-based methods with the standard bootstrap (SBS), the Bayesian approach, and the recently introduced rapid bootstrap. Our simulations and real data analyses show that with moderate model violations, all tests are sufficiently accurate, but aLRT and aBayes offer the highest statistical power and are very fast. With severe model violations aLRT, aBayes and Bayesian posteriors can produce elevated false-positive rates. With data sets for which such violation can be detected, we recommend using SH-aLRT, the nonparametric version of aLRT based on a procedure similar to the Shimodaira-Hasegawa tree selection. In general, the SBS seems to be excessively conservative and is much slower than our approximate likelihood-based methods.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticModels, StatisticalAmino AcidsAnimalsBayes TheoremClassificationComputer SimulationLikelihood FunctionsOrchidaceaePhylogenyStatistics, NonparametricAmino Acids

Identifiers

PMID21540409
PMCPMC3158332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.