ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2026
DiagnoDating: diagnostics for dated phylogenies in microbial population genetics.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbial population genetic studies often involve the use of a dated phylogeny to show how the genomes are related over a relevant timescale. Many tools have recently been developed to date the nodes of a standard phylogeny, but all make underlying assumptions that may not be realistic for a given dataset, making the results potentially unreliable. Model comparison is sometimes used to remedy this issue, whereby inference under several models is compared to establish which result can be trusted. Although such comparison is clearly useful to assess the relative merits of several inference attempts, here instead we focus on the problem of evaluating how good an inference is in absolute terms, without comparison. We consider several approaches for diagnosing potential issues in a reconstructed dated phylogeny, including outlier detection, posterior predictive checking and residual analysis. These methods are well-established diagnostics tools in other areas of statistics, but here we show how they can be applied to the specific inference of dated phylogenies. We illustrate their use on many simulated datasets, with inference being performed either from the correct model to quantify the specificity or from an incorrect model to quantify the sensitivity of the diagnostics methods. We also applied the methods to three real-life datasets to showcase the range of issues that they can detect. We have implemented the methods in a new R package entitled DiagnoDating. We advocate the use of these diagnostics tools for all microbial population genetic studies that involve the reconstruction of a dated phylogeny.
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.