Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39418118›Full record

ReviewMolecular biology and evolution2024

The Meaning and Measure of Concordance Factors in Phylogenomics.

Robert Lanfear, Matthew W Hahn

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The ambrosial mycobiota ofIMA fungus · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robert LanfearEcology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1140-2596
Matthew W HahnDepartment of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5731-8808

Funding

Australian Research Council DP200103151National Science Foundation DEB-1936187
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As phylogenomic datasets have grown in size, researchers have developed new ways to measure biological variation and to assess statistical support for specific branches. Larger datasets have more sites and loci and therefore less sampling variance. While we can more accurately measure the mean signal in these datasets, lower sampling variance is often reflected in uniformly high measures of branch support-such as the bootstrap and posterior probability-limiting their utility. Larger datasets have also revealed substantial biological variation in the topologies found across individual loci, such that the single species tree inferred by most phylogenetic methods represents a limited summary of the data for many purposes. In contrast to measures of statistical support, the degree of underlying topological variation among loci should be approximately constant regardless of the size of the dataset. "Concordance factors" (CFs) and similar statistics have therefore become increasingly important tools in phylogenetics. In this review, we explain why CFs should be thought of as descriptors of topological variation rather than as measures of statistical support, and argue that they provide important information about the predictive power of the species tree not contained in measures of support. We review a growing suite of statistics for measuring concordance, compare them in a common framework that reveals their interrelationships, and demonstrate how to calculate them using an example from birds. We also discuss how measures of topological variation might change in the future as we move beyond estimating a single "tree of life" toward estimating the myriad evolutionary histories underlying genomic variation.

Indexed as

GenomicsPhylogenyAnimalsBirdsModels, Geneticcoalescentconcordancephylogenomics

Identifiers

PMID39418118
PMCPMC11532913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.