Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31185865›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2019

Comparing fitness and drift explanations of Neanderthal replacement.

Daniel R Shultz, Marcel Montrey, Thomas R Shultz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neanderthal coexistence withScience advances · 2023
    Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Daniel R Shultz1 Department of Anthropology, McGill University , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.
Marcel Montrey3 Department of Psychology, McGill University , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.
Thomas R Shultz3 Department of Psychology, McGill University , Montreal, Quebec , Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a general consensus among archaeologists that replacement of Neanderthals by anatomically modern humans in Europe occurred around 40-35 ka. However, the causal mechanism for this replacement continues to be debated. Proposed models have featured either fitness advantages in favour of anatomically modern humans or invoked neutral drift under various preconditions. Searching for specific fitness advantages in the archaeological record has proven difficult, as these may be obscured, absent or subject to interpretation. To bridge this gap, we rigorously compare the system-level properties of fitness- and drift-based explanations of Neanderthal replacement. Our stochastic simulations and analytical predictions show that, although both fitness and drift can produce replacement, they present important differences in (i) required initial conditions, (ii) reliability, (iii) time to replacement, and (iv) path to replacement (population histories). These results present useful opportunities for comparison with archaeological and genetic data. We find greater agreement between the available empirical evidence and the system-level properties of replacement by differential fitness, rather than by neutral drift.

Indexed as

Genetic DriftModels, TheoreticalAnimalsHumansNeanderthalsPopulation DensityPopulation DynamicsStochastic Processesanatomically modern humansdriftfitnessNeanderthalsspecies replacement

Identifiers

PMID31185865
PMCPMC6571460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.