Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24959900›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Amount of information needed for model choice in Approximate Bayesian Computation.

Michael Stocks, Mathieu Siol, Martin Lascoux, Stéphane De Mita

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

4 authors.

Michael StocksDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Program in Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Mathieu SiolInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), UMR Agroécologie, Dijon, France.
Martin LascouxDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Program in Plant Ecology and Evolution, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Stéphane De MitaInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), UMR Interactions Arbres-Microorganismes (IAM), Nancy, France; Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), UMR Diversité et Adaptation des Plantes Cultivées, Montpellier, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) has become a popular technique in evolutionary genetics for elucidating population structure and history due to its flexibility. The statistical inference framework has benefited from significant progress in recent years. In population genetics, however, its outcome depends heavily on the amount of information in the dataset, whether that be the level of genetic variation or the number of samples and loci. Here we look at the power to reject a simple constant population size coalescent model in favor of a bottleneck model in datasets of varying quality. Not only is this power dependent on the number of samples and loci, but it also depends strongly on the level of nucleotide diversity in the observed dataset. Whilst overall model choice in an ABC setting is fairly powerful and quite conservative with regard to false positives, detecting weaker bottlenecks is problematic in smaller or less genetically diverse datasets and limits the inferences possible in non-model organism where the amount of information regarding the two models is often limited. Our results show it is important to consider these limitations when performing an ABC analysis and that studies should perform simulations based on the size and nature of the dataset in order to fully assess the power of the study.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBayes TheoremComputational BiologyGenetic VariationPopulation DensityPrincipal Component Analysis

Identifiers

PMID24959900
PMCPMC4069000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.