ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024
A machine-learning-based alternative to phylogenetic bootstrap.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prediction Models for Post-Stroke Hospital Readmission: A Systematic Review.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Pooled it
- A deep learning-based score to evaluate multiple sequence alignments.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Phylogenetic Methods Meet Deep Learning.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- The Bayesian Phylogenetic Bootstrap and its Application to Short Trees and Branches.Molecular biology and 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationCurrently used methods for estimating branch support in phylogenetic analyses often rely on the classic Felsenstein's bootstrap, parametric tests, or their approximations. As these branch support scores are widely used in phylogenetic analyses, having accurate, fast, and interpretable scores is of high importance.
resultsHere, we employed a data-driven approach to estimate branch support values with a probabilistic interpretation. To this end, we simulated thousands of realistic phylogenetic trees and the corresponding multiple sequence alignments. Each of the obtained alignments was used to infer the phylogeny using state-of-the-art phylogenetic inference software, which was then compared to the true tree. Using these extensive data, we trained machine-learning algorithms to estimate branch support values for each bipartition within the maximum-likelihood trees obtained by each software. Our results demonstrate that our model provides fast and more accurate probability-based branch support values than commonly used procedures. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach on empirical datasets. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The data supporting this work are available in the Figshare repository at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25050554.v1, and the underlying code is accessible via GitHub at https://github.com/noaeker/bootstrap_repo.
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.