Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27230264›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2016

Cross-validation to select Bayesian hierarchical models in phylogenetics.

Sebastián Duchêne, David A Duchêne, Francesca Di Giallonardo, John-Sebastian Eden, Jemma L Geoghegan, Kathryn E Holt, Simon Y W Ho, Edward C Holmes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Multi-level and hybrid modelling approaches for systems biology.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2017
    Review
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

8 authors.

Sebastián DuchêneMarie Bashir Institute of Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. sebastian.duchene@sydney.edu.au.
David A DuchêneSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Francesca Di GiallonardoMarie Bashir Institute of Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
John-Sebastian EdenMarie Bashir Institute of Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Jemma L GeogheganMarie Bashir Institute of Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Kathryn E HoltDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Simon Y W HoSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Edward C HolmesMarie Bashir Institute of Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Charles Perkins Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent developments in Bayesian phylogenetic models have increased the range of inferences that can be drawn from molecular sequence data. Accordingly, model selection has become an important component of phylogenetic analysis. Methods of model selection generally consider the likelihood of the data under the model in question. In the context of Bayesian phylogenetics, the most common approach involves estimating the marginal likelihood, which is typically done by integrating the likelihood across model parameters, weighted by the prior. Although this method is accurate, it is sensitive to the presence of improper priors. We explored an alternative approach based on cross-validation that is widely used in evolutionary analysis. This involves comparing models according to their predictive performance.

resultsWe analysed simulated data and a range of viral and bacterial data sets using a cross-validation approach to compare a variety of molecular clock and demographic models. Our results show that cross-validation can be effective in distinguishing between strict- and relaxed-clock models and in identifying demographic models that allow growth in population size over time. In most of our empirical data analyses, the model selected using cross-validation was able to match that selected using marginal-likelihood estimation. The accuracy of cross-validation appears to improve with longer sequence data, particularly when distinguishing between relaxed-clock models.

conclusionsCross-validation is a useful method for Bayesian phylogenetic model selection. This method can be readily implemented even when considering complex models where selecting an appropriate prior for all parameters may be difficult.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremModels, GeneticPhylogenyBacteriaBiological EvolutionComputer SimulationEvolution, MolecularLikelihood FunctionsReproducibility of ResultsVirusesBayesian phylogeneticsCross-validationDemographic modelsMarginal likelihoodModel selectionMolecular clock

Identifiers

PMID27230264
PMCPMC4880944

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.