Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31221105›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019

Testing adequacy for DNA substitution models.

Wei Chen, Toby Kenney, Joseph Bielawski, Hong Gu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 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. 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

4 authors.

Wei ChenDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Toby KenneyDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Joseph BielawskiDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Hong GuDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. hgu@dal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3140-027X

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada DG253484Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada DG298394Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN/4945-2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTesting model adequacy is important before a DNA substitution model is chosen for phylogenetic inference. Using a mis-specified model can negatively impact phylogenetic inference, for example, the maximum likelihood method can be inconsistent when the DNA sequences are generated under a tree topology which is in the Felsentein Zone and analyzed with a mis-specified or inadequate model. However, model adequacy testing in phylogenetics is underdeveloped.

resultsHere we develop a simple, general, powerful and robust model test based on Pearson's goodness-of-fit test and binning of site patterns. We demonstrate through simulation that this test is robust in its high power to reject the inadequate models for a large range of different ways of binning site patterns while the Type I error is controlled well. In the real data analysis we discovered many cases where models chosen by another method can be rejected by this new test, in particular, our proposed test rejects the most complex DNA model (GTR+I+ Γ) while the Goldman-Cox test fails to reject the commonly used simple models.

conclusionsModel adequacy testing and bootstrap should be used together to assess reliability of conclusions after model selection and model fitting have already been applied to choose the model and fit it. The new goodness-of-fit test proposed in this paper is a simple and powerful model adequacy testing method serving such a regular model checking purpose. We caution against deriving strong conclusions from analyses based on inadequate models. At a minimum, those results derived from inadequate models can now be readly flagged using the new test, and reported as such.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticBase SequenceBiasBinding SitesComputer SimulationDatabases, GeneticDNAHumansLikelihood FunctionsPhylogenyDNADNA substitution modelLong branch attractionModel adequacy testPearson’s goodness-of-fit test

Identifiers

PMID31221105
PMCPMC6585133

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.