Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028293›Full record

ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2025

A Dichotomy Law for Certain Classes of Phylogenetic Networks.

Michael Fuchs, Mike Steel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael FuchsNational Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. mfuchs@nccu.edu.tw.ORCID 0000-0001-8891-6897
Mike SteelUniversity of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-7015-4644

Funding

Marsden Fund 23-UOC-003National Science and Technology Council NSTC-113-2115-M-004-004-MY3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many classes of phylogenetic networks have been proposed in the literature. A feature of several of these classes is that if one restricts a network in the class to a subset of its leaves, then the resulting network may no longer lie within this class. This has implications for their biological applicability, since some species - which are the leaves of an underlying evolutionary network - may be missing (e.g., they may have become extinct, or there are no data available for them) or we may simply wish to focus attention on a subset of the species. On the other hand, certain classes of networks are 'closed' when we restrict to subsets of leaves, such as (i) the classes of all phylogenetic networks or all phylogenetic trees; (ii) the classes of galled networks, simplicial networks, galled trees; and (iii) the classes of networks that have some parameter that is monotone-under-leaf-subsampling (e.g., the number of reticulations, height, etc.) bounded by some fixed value. It is easily shown that a closed subclass of phylogenetic trees is either all trees or a vanishingly small proportion of them (as the number of leaves grows). In this short paper, we explore whether this dichotomy phenomenon holds for other classes of phylogenetic networks, and their subclasses.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticPhylogenyAnimalsBiological EvolutionMathematical ConceptsAsymptotic enumerationClosureDichotomyPhylogenetic networks

Identifiers

PMID41028293
PMCPMC12484314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.