ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2023
Computational Reproducibility of Molecular Phylogenies.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2023. 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.
- Phylogenomic subsampling and upsampling for efficient evolutionary analyses of big data.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Phylogenomic subsampling and upsampling for efficient evolutionary analyses of big data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Treeline Provides a Unified Strategy for Optimising Phylogenetic Trees Under Alternative Criteria.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- A NovelBiomolecules · 2025Article
- PsiPartition: Improved Site Partitioning for Genomic Data by Parameterized Sorting Indices and Bayesian Optimization.Journal of molecular evolution · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Repeated runs of the same program can generate different molecular phylogenies from identical data sets under the same analytical conditions. This lack of reproducibility of inferred phylogenies casts a long shadow on downstream research employing these phylogenies in areas such as comparative genomics, systematics, and functional biology. We have assessed the relative accuracies and log-likelihoods of alternative phylogenies generated for computer-simulated and empirical data sets. Our findings indicate that these alternative phylogenies reconstruct evolutionary relationships with comparable accuracy. They also have similar log-likelihoods that are not inferior to the log-likelihoods of the true tree. We determined that the direct relationship between irreproducibility and inaccuracy is due to their common dependence on the amount of phylogenetic information in the data. While computational reproducibility can be enhanced through more extensive heuristic searches for the maximum likelihood tree, this does not lead to higher accuracy. We conclude that computational irreproducibility plays a minor role in molecular phylogenetics.
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.