ArticleSystematic biology2025
Phylogenetic Tree Instability After Taxon Addition: Empirical Frequency, Predictability, and Consequences For Online Inference.
Article in Systematic biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rate variation and recurrent sequence errors in pandemic-scale phylogenetics.Nature methods · 2026Article
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
Online phylogenetic inference methods add sequentially arriving sequences to an inferred phylogeny without the need to recompute the entire tree from scratch. Some online method implementations exist already, but there remains concern that additional sequences may change the topological relationship among the original set of taxa. We call such a change in tree topology a lack of stability for the inferred tree. In this article, we analyze the stability of single taxon addition in a Maximum Likelihood framework across 1000 empirical datasets. We find that instability occurs in almost 90% of our examples, although observed topological differences do not always reach significance under the approximately unbiased (AU) test. Changes in tree topology after addition of a taxon rarely occur close to its attachment location, and are more frequently observed in more distant tree locations carrying low bootstrap support. To investigate whether instability is predictable, we hypothesize sources of instability and design summary statistics addressing these hypotheses. Using these summary statistics as input features for machine learning under random forests, we are able to predict instability and can identify the most influential features. In summary, it does not appear that a strict insertion-only online inference method will deliver globally optimal trees, although relaxing insertion strictness by allowing for a small number of final tree rearrangements or accepting slightly suboptimal solutions appears feasible.
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.