ArticleBulletin of mathematical biology2026
Estimating the Growth Rate of a Birth and Death Process Using data From a Small Sample.
Article in Bulletin of mathematical biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The problem of estimating the growth rate of a birth and death processes based on the coalescence times of a sample of n individuals has been considered by several authors (Stadler in Journal of Theoretical Biology 261(1):58-66, 2009: Williams et al in Nature 602 (7895):162-168, 2022: Mitchell et al in Nature 606(7913):343-350, 2022: Johnson et al in Bioinformatics 39(9):btad561, 2023). This problem has applications, for example, to cancer research, when one is interested in determining the growth rate of a clone. Recently, Johnson et al Bioinformatics 39(9):btad561, 2023) proposed an analytical method for estimating the growth rate using the theory of coalescent point processes, which has comparable accuracy to more computationally intensive methods when the sample size n is large. We use a similar approach to obtain an estimate of the growth rate that is not based on the assumption that n is large. We demonstrate, through simulations using the R package cloneRate, that our estimator of the growth rate performs well in comparison with previous approaches when n is small.
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.