ArticleSystematic biology2025
The Fossilized Birth-Death Model Is Identifiable.
Article in Systematic biology, 2025. 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating Divergence Times and Diversification Rates with the Unresolved Fossilized Birth-Death Process.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Unidentifiability and false-positive inference in state-dependent diversification models.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The effects of cryptic diversity on diversification dynamics analyses in Crocodylia.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Reading tree leaves: inferring speciation anfd extinction processes using phylogenies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Evolutionary and epidemic dynamics of COVID-19 in Germany exemplified by three Bayesian phylodynamic case studies.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2025Article
- A Diffusion-Based Approach for Simulating Forward-in-Time State-Dependent Speciation and Extinction Dynamics.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2024Article
- Article
- Mechanistic phylodynamic models do not provide conclusive evidence that non-avian dinosaurs were in decline before their final extinction.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Time-dependent birth-death sampling models have been used in numerous studies to infer past evolutionary dynamics in different biological contexts, for example, speciation and extinction rates in macroevolutionary studies, or effective reproductive number in epidemiological studies. These models are branching processes where lineages can bifurcate, die, or be sampled with time-dependent birth, death, and sampling rates, generating phylogenetic trees. It has been shown that in some subclasses of such models, different sets of rates can result in the same distributions of reconstructed phylogenetic trees, and therefore, the rates become unidentifiable from the trees regardless of their size. Here, we show that widely used time-dependent fossilized birth-death (FBD) models are identifiable. This subclass of models makes more realistic assumptions about the fossilization process and certain infectious disease transmission processes than the unidentifiable birth-death sampling models. Namely, FBD models assume that sampled lineages stay in the process rather than being immediately removed upon sampling. The identifiability of the time-dependent FBD model justifies using statistical methods that implement this model to infer the underlying temporal diversification or epidemiological dynamics from phylogenetic trees or directly from molecular or other comparative data. We further show that the time-dependent FBD model with an extra parameter, the removal after sampling probability, is unidentifiable. This implies that in scenarios where we do not know how sampling affects lineages, we are unable to infer this extra parameter together with birth, death, and sampling rates solely from trees.
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.