Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42861193›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Posterior simulation-based calibration tests of phylogenetic dating methods.

Benedict King

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. 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

1 author.

Benedict KingDepartment of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Saxony, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simulation-based calibration (SBC) checking is a method to ensure that the inference machinery for a Bayesian statistical analysis is functioning in a correct and unbiased manner. Typically, SBC begins with sampling parameter values from the model priors (prior SBC). However, it has been shown that prior SBC can miss problems when these manifest only in certain regions of parameter space. In phylogenetics, this is relevant not only because of the vastness of tree and parameter space, but also because many phylogenetic analyses involve some degree of model misspecification. Posterior SBC is a recently developed method for checking that the inference algorithms function correctly for a given empirical dataset. Here I use posterior SBC to test the implementation of phylogenetic dating methods in the inference software BEAST 2. I test both the tip-dated approach, employing an Indo-European vocabulary dataset, and the node-dated approach, employing a molecular rRNA dataset of Tabanidae (horseflies). In both cases, posterior SBC tests indicate good calibration. Despite this, posterior predictive datasets simulated from the posterior distribution provided no further increase in the precision of node age estimates compared to the original posterior, a result consistent with previous literature showing fundamental theoretical limits to the identifiability of node ages. Nevertheless, these results suggest that phylogenetic dating methods in BEAST 2 are not biased by problems with the inference machinery, thereby increasing confidence in results obtained using these methods.

Indexed as

PhylogenyAlgorithmsAnimalsBayes TheoremCalibrationComputer SimulationDipteraSoftwareBayesian inferenceCalibrationModel evaluationNode-datingPhylogeneticsTip-datingValidation

Identifiers

PMID42861193
PMCPMC13654278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.