ReviewEvolutionary anthropology2021
Inferring archaic introgression from hominin genetic data.
Review in Evolutionary anthropology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances in methods to characterize archaic introgression in modern humans.Genome research · 2026Review
- A Macaque Model for the Effects of Hybridization on Body Size.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Article
- Temporal Variation in Introgressed Segments' Length Statistics Computed from a Limited Number of Ancient Genomes Sheds Light on Past Admixture Pulses.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Temporal population structure, a genetic dating method for ancient Eurasian genomes from the past 10,000 years.Cell reports methods · 2022Article
- Inferring archaic introgression from hominin genetic data.Evolutionary anthropology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Questions surrounding the timing, extent, and evolutionary consequences of archaic admixture into human populations have a long history in evolutionary anthropology. More recently, advances in human genetics, particularly in the field of ancient DNA, have shed new light on the question of whether or not Homo sapiens interbred with other hominin groups. By the late 1990s, published genetic work had largely concluded that archaic groups made no lasting genetic contribution to modern humans; less than a decade later, this conclusion was reversed following the successful DNA sequencing of an ancient Neanderthal. This reversal of consensus is noteworthy, but the reasoning behind it is not widely understood across all academic communities. There remains a communication gap between population geneticists and paleoanthropologists. In this review, we endeavor to bridge this gap by outlining how technological advancements, new statistical methods, and notable controversies ultimately led to the current consensus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.