ReviewEcology and evolution2024
Comparison of phylogenetic trees defined on different but mutually overlapping sets of taxa: A review.
Review in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of phylogenetic trees defined on different but mutually overlapping sets of taxa: A review.Ecology and evolution · 2024Review
- Distances Between Extension Spaces of Phylogenetic Trees.IEEE transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phylogenetic trees represent the evolutionary relationships and ancestry of various species or groups of organisms. Comparing these trees by measuring the distance between them is essential for applications such as tree clustering and the Tree of Life project. Many distance metrics for phylogenetic trees focus on trees defined on the same set of taxa. However, some problems require calculating distances between trees with different but overlapping sets of taxa. This study reviews state-of-the-art distance measures for such trees, covering six major approaches, including the constraint-based Robinson-Foulds (RF) distance RF(-), the completion-based RF(+), the generalized RF (GRF), the dissimilarity measure, the vectorial tree distance, and the geodesic distance in the extended Billera-Holmes-Vogtmann tree space. Among these, three RF-based methods, RF(-), RF(+), and GRF, were examined in detail on generated clusters of phylogenetic trees defined on different but mutually overlapping sets of taxa. Additionally, we reviewed nine related techniques, including leaf imputation methods, the tree edit distance, and visual comparison. A comparison of the related distance measures, highlighting their principal advantages and shortcomings, is provided. This review offers valuable insights into their applicability and performance, guiding the appropriate use of these metrics based on tree type (rooted or unrooted) and information type (topological or branch lengths).
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.