Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33989428›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2021

Are Skyline Plot-Based Demographic Estimates Overly Dependent on Smoothing Prior Assumptions?

Kris V Parag, Oliver G Pybus, Chieh-Hsi Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Kris V ParagMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, UK.
Oliver G PybusDepartment of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3SY, UK.
Chieh-Hsi WuMathematical Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.

Funding

European Union MR/R015600/1Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Bayesian phylogenetics, the coalescent process provides an informative framework for inferring changes in the effective size of a population from a phylogeny (or tree) of sequences sampled from that population. Popular coalescent inference approaches such as the Bayesian Skyline Plot, Skyride, and Skygrid all model these population size changes with a discontinuous, piecewise-constant function but then apply a smoothing prior to ensure that their posterior population size estimates transition gradually with time. These prior distributions implicitly encode extra population size information that is not available from the observed coalescent data or tree. Here, we present a novel statistic, $\Omega$, to quantify and disaggregate the relative contributions of the coalescent data and prior assumptions to the resulting posterior estimate precision. Our statistic also measures the additional mutual information introduced by such priors. Using $\Omega$ we show that, because it is surprisingly easy to overparametrize piecewise-constant population models, common smoothing priors can lead to overconfident and potentially misleading inference, even under robust experimental designs. We propose $\Omega$ as a useful tool for detecting when effective population size estimates are overly reliant on prior assumptions and for improving quantification of the uncertainty in those estimates.[Coalescent processes; effective population size; information theory; phylodynamics; prior assumptions; skyline plots.].

Indexed as

Models, GeneticBayes TheoremPhylogenyPopulation Density

Identifiers

PMID33989428
PMCPMC8677568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.