ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2023
Evaluation of the Relative Performance of the Subflattenings Method for Phylogenetic Inference.
Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The algebraic properties of flattenings and subflattenings provide direct methods for identifying edges in the true phylogeny-and by extension the complete tree-using pattern counts from a sequence alignment. The relatively small number of possible internal edges among a set of taxa (compared to the number of binary trees) makes these methods attractive; however, more could be done to evaluate their effectiveness for inferring phylogenetic trees. This is the case particularly for subflattenings, and the work we present here makes progress in this area. We introduce software for constructing and evaluating subflattenings for splits, utilising a number of methods to make computing subflattenings more tractable. We then present the results of simulations we have performed in order to compare the effectiveness of subflattenings to that of flattenings in terms of split score distributions, and susceptibility to possible biases. We find that subflattenings perform similarly to flattenings in terms of the distribution of split scores on the trees we examined, but may be less affected by bias arising from both split size/balance and long branch attraction. These insights are useful for developing effective algorithms to utilise these tools for the purpose of inferring phylogenetic trees.
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.