Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42127157›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Extremal events dictate population growth rate inference.

Trevor GrandPre, Ethan Levien, Ariel Amir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Trevor GrandPreDepartment of Physics, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3565-6873
Ethan LevienDepartment of Mathematics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.
Ariel AmirDepartment of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2611-0139

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent methods have been developed to map single-cell lineage statistics to population growth. Because population growth selects for exponentially rare phenotypes, these methods inherently depend on sampling large deviations from finite data, which introduces systematic errors. A comprehensive understanding of these errors in the context of finite data remains elusive. To address this gap, we study the error in growth rate estimates across different models. We show that under the usual bias-variance decomposition, the bias can be decomposed into a finite-time bias and nonlinear averaging bias. We demonstrate that finite-time bias, which dominates at short times, can be mitigated by fitting its monotonic behavior. In contrast, at longer times, nonlinear averaging bias becomes the predominant source of error, leading to a phase transition. This transition can be understood through the Random Energy Model, a mean-field model of disordered systems, where a few lineages dominate the estimator. Applying these methods to experimental data demonstrates that correcting for biases in lineage-based approaches yields consistent results for the long-term growth rate across multiple methods and enables the reverse-engineering of dynamic models. This new framework provides a quantitative understanding of growth rate estimators, clarifies the conditions under which they can be effectively applied to finite data, and introduces model-free approaches for studying the connections between physiology and cell growth.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPopulation GrowthAnimalsCell LineageComputational BiologyComputer Simulation

Identifiers

PMID42127157
PMCPMC13421774

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.