ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2024
Predicting Phylogenetic Bootstrap Values via Machine Learning.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic characterization of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli isolated from hospital wastewater in Niamey, Niger.IJID regions · 2026Article
- A deep learning-based score to evaluate multiple sequence alignments.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Advances and challenges in understanding evolution through genome comparison: meeting report of the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) lecture course "Evolutionary and Comparative Genomics".Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Epidemiology and genetic characteristics of coxsackievirus A16 associated with hand-foot-mouth disease in Hangzhou city, Zhejiang province from 2021 to 2024.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Prevalence, genotyping and phylogenetic analysis of HPV infecting Palestinian women.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- The Bayesian Phylogenetic Bootstrap and its Application to Short Trees and Branches.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024Article
- Phylogenetic reconciliation: making the most of genomes to understand microbial ecology and evolution.The ISME journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Estimating the statistical robustness of the inferred tree(s) constitutes an integral part of most phylogenetic analyses. Commonly, one computes and assigns a branch support value to each inner branch of the inferred phylogeny. The still most widely used method for calculating branch support on trees inferred under maximum likelihood (ML) is the Standard, nonparametric Felsenstein bootstrap support (SBS). Due to the high computational cost of the SBS, a plethora of methods has been developed to approximate it, for instance, via the rapid bootstrap (RB) algorithm. There have also been attempts to devise faster, alternative support measures, such as the SH-aLRT (Shimodaira-Hasegawa-like approximate likelihood ratio test) or the UltraFast bootstrap 2 (UFBoot2) method. Those faster alternatives exhibit some limitations, such as the need to assess model violations (UFBoot2) or unstable behavior in the low support interval range (SH-aLRT). Here, we present the educated bootstrap guesser (EBG), a machine learning-based tool that predicts SBS branch support values for a given input phylogeny. EBG is on average 9.4 (σ=5.5) times faster than UFBoot2. EBG-based SBS estimates exhibit a median absolute error of 5 when predicting SBS values between 0 and 100. Furthermore, EBG also provides uncertainty measures for all per-branch SBS predictions and thereby allows for a more rigorous and careful interpretation. EBG can, for instance, predict SBS support values on a phylogeny comprising 1,654 SARS-CoV2 genome sequences within 3 h on a mid-class laptop. EBG is available under GNU GPL3.
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.