ArticleOpen research Europe2023
Practical guidelines for Bayesian phylogenetic inference using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC).
Article in Open research Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative diagnostic performance of imaging modalities in chronic pancreatitis: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Intragenomic rDNA Variants Identified inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bayesian Inference of Pathogen Phylogeography using the Structured Coalescent Model.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Evolutionary and epidemic dynamics of COVID-19 in Germany exemplified by three Bayesian phylodynamic case studies.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2025Article
- Article
- Bayesian Calibration to Address the Challenge of Antimicrobial Resistance: A Review.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phylogenetic estimation is, and has always been, a complex endeavor. Estimating a phylogenetic tree involves evaluating many possible evolutionary histories that could explain a set of observed data, typically by using a model of evolution. Values for all model parameters need to be estimated as well. Bayesian phylogenetic inference is a state-of-the-art statistical method which allows us to co-estimate a phylogeny, evolutionary parameters, and obtain a detailed representation of the uncertainty associated with the estimates. Bayesian inferences commonly involve complex demographic models for the estimation of a tree, or incorporate data beyond genetic sequences, such as information from the fossil record. All Bayesian phylogenetic tree estimation software use the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm, a method for approximating the posterior distribution of parameters in a mathematical model. While many researchers use MCMC in phylogenetic analyses, interpreting results and diagnosing problems with MCMC remain vexing issues to many biologists. We thus offer an overview of how MCMC is used in Bayesian phylogenetic inference, with a particular emphasis on complex hierarchical models, such as the fossilized birth-death (FBD) model. We will discuss strategies to diagnose common MCMC problems and troubleshoot difficult analyses, in particular convergence issues. We will show how the study design, the choice of models and priors, but also technical features of the inference tools themselves can all be adjusted to obtain the best results. Finally, we will also discuss the unique challenges created by the incorporation of fossil information in phylogenetic inference, and present tips to address them.
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.