Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38189575›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2024

Deep Learning and Likelihood Approaches for Viral Phylogeography Converge on the Same Answers Whether the Inference Model Is Right or Wrong.

Ammon Thompson, Benjamin J Liebeskind, Erik J Scully, Michael J Landis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Phylogenetic Methods Meet Deep Learning.Genome biology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Exact and efficient phylodynamic simulation from arbitrarily large populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. phyddle: software for exploring phylogenetic models with deep learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Ammon ThompsonParticipant in an Education Program Sponsored by U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Springfield, VA 22150, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1825-4685
Benjamin J LiebeskindNational Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Springfield, VA 22150, USA.
Erik J ScullyNational Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Springfield, VA 22150, USA.
Michael J LandisDepartment of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, Rebstock Hall, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.

Funding

Phylogenetic modeling of viral transmission dynamics at the human-wildlife interface in UgandaR01TW012704 · FIC · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Krista Milich · 2023 to 2026
$2.6M
FIC NIH HHS R01 TW012704National Science Foundation 2040347NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis of phylogenetic trees has become an essential tool in epidemiology. Likelihood-based methods fit models to phylogenies to draw inferences about the phylodynamics and history of viral transmission. However, these methods are often computationally expensive, which limits the complexity and realism of phylodynamic models and makes them ill-suited for informing policy decisions in real-time during rapidly developing outbreaks. Likelihood-free methods using deep learning are pushing the boundaries of inference beyond these constraints. In this paper, we extend, compare, and contrast a recently developed deep learning method for likelihood-free inference from trees. We trained multiple deep neural networks using phylogenies from simulated outbreaks that spread among 5 locations and found they achieve close to the same levels of accuracy as Bayesian inference under the true simulation model. We compared robustness to model misspecification of a trained neural network to that of a Bayesian method. We found that both models had comparable performance, converging on similar biases. We also implemented a method of uncertainty quantification called conformalized quantile regression that we demonstrate has similar patterns of sensitivity to model misspecification as Bayesian highest posterior density (HPD) and greatly overlap with HPDs, but have lower precision (more conservative). Finally, we trained and tested a neural network against phylogeographic data from a recent study of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic in Europe and obtained similar estimates of region-specific epidemiological parameters and the location of the common ancestor in Europe. Along with being as accurate and robust as likelihood-based methods, our trained neural networks are on average over 3 orders of magnitude faster after training. Our results support the notion that neural networks can be trained with simulated data to accurately mimic the good and bad statistical properties of the likelihood functions of generative phylogenetic models.

Indexed as

Deep LearningPhylogeographyBayes TheoremClassificationLikelihood FunctionsPhylogenyVirusesDeep learningepidemiologymachine learningphylodynamicsphylogeography

Identifiers

PMID38189575
PMCPMC11249978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.