Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25634097›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2015

Circumstances in which parsimony but not compatibility will be provably misleading.

Robert W Scotland, Mike Steel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2015. 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

2 authors.

Robert W ScotlandDepartment of Plant Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 3RB, UK;
Mike SteelBiomathematics Research Centre, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand mike.steel@canterbury.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phylogenetic methods typically rely on an appropriate model of how data evolved in order to infer an accurate phylogenetic tree. For molecular data, standard statistical methods have provided an effective strategy for extracting phylogenetic information from aligned sequence data when each site (character) is subject to a common process. However, for other types of data (e.g., morphological data), characters can be too ambiguous, homoplastic, or saturated to develop models that are effective at capturing the underlying process of change. To address this, we examine the properties of a classic but neglected method for inferring splits in an underlying tree, namely, maximum compatibility. By adopting a simple and extreme model in which each character either fits perfectly on some tree, or is entirely random (but it is not known which class any character belongs to) we are able to derive exact and explicit formulae regarding the performance of maximum compatibility. We show that this method is able to identify a set of non-trivial homoplasy-free characters, when the number [Formula: see text] of taxa is large, even when the number of random characters is large. In contrast, we show that a method that makes more uniform use of all the data-maximum parsimony-can provably estimate trees in which none of the original homoplasy-free characters support splits.

Indexed as

PhylogenyClassificationModels, GeneticCharacter compatibilityhomoplasyparsimonyphylogenetic tree

Identifiers

PMID25634097
PMCPMC4395848

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.