Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30571959›Full record

ArticleTheoretical population biology2019

Exact limits of inference in coalescent models.

James E Johndrow, Julia A Palacios

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theoretical population biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

James E Johndrow390 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: johndrow@stanford.edu.
Julia A Palacios390 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: juliapr@stanford.edu.

Funding

Scalable Coalescent Inference for Large Data SetsR01GM131404 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI PALACIOS, JULIA · 2018 to 2021
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM131404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recovery of population size history from molecular sequence data is an important problem in population genetics. Inference commonly relies on a coalescent model linking the population size history to genealogies. The high computational cost of estimating parameters from these models usually compels researchers to select a subset of the available data or to rely on insufficient summary statistics for statistical inference. We consider the problem of recovering the true population size history from two possible alternatives on the basis of coalescent time data previously considered by Kim et al. (2015). We improve upon previous results by giving exact expressions for the probability of correctly distinguishing between the two hypotheses as a function of the separation between the alternative size histories, the number of individuals, loci, and the sampling times. In more complicated settings we estimate the exact probability of correct recovery by Monte Carlo simulation. Our results give considerably more pessimistic inferential limits than those previously reported. We also extended our analyses to pairwise SMC and SMC' models of recombination. This work is relevant for optimal design when the inference goal is to test scientific hypotheses about population size trajectories in coalescent models with and without recombination.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationMarkov ChainsMolecular Sequence DataPopulation DensityBayes error ratesCoalescentEffective population sizeSequentially Markov coalescent

Identifiers

PMID30571959
PMCPMC6541399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.