ArticleSystematic biology2021
Are Skyline Plot-Based Demographic Estimates Overly Dependent on Smoothing Prior Assumptions?
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.
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.
- Model design for nonparametric phylodynamic inference and applications to pathogen surveillance.Virus evolution · 2023Article
- Epidemiological inference from pathogen genomes: A review of phylodynamic models and applications.Virus evolution · 2022Review
- Deciphering early-warning signals of SARS-CoV-2 elimination and resurgence from limited data at multiple scales.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
- Improved estimation of time-varying reproduction numbers at low case incidence and between epidemic waves.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Adaptive Estimation for Epidemic Renewal and Phylogenetic Skyline Models.Systematic biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.