These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24503481)

  • 1. Divergent maximum-likelihood-branch-support values for polytomies.
    Simmons MP; Norton AP
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2014 Apr; 73():87-96. PubMed ID: 24503481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dubious resolution and support from published sparse supermatrices: the importance of thorough tree searches.
    Simmons MP; Goloboff PA
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2014 Sep; 78():334-48. PubMed ID: 24929246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Disparate parametric branch-support values from ambiguous characters.
    Simmons MP; Randle CP
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2014 Sep; 78():66-86. PubMed ID: 24821621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Survey of branch support methods demonstrates accuracy, power, and robustness of fast likelihood-based approximation schemes.
    Anisimova M; Gil M; Dufayard JF; Dessimoz C; Gascuel O
    Syst Biol; 2011 Oct; 60(5):685-99. PubMed ID: 21540409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability.
    Douady CJ; Delsuc F; Boucher Y; Doolittle WF; Douzery EJ
    Mol Biol Evol; 2003 Feb; 20(2):248-54. PubMed ID: 12598692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Divergence and support among slightly suboptimal likelihood gene trees.
    Simmons MP; Kessenich J
    Cladistics; 2020 Jun; 36(3):322-340. PubMed ID: 34618962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Polytomies and Bayesian phylogenetic inference.
    Lewis PO; Holder MT; Holsinger KE
    Syst Biol; 2005 Apr; 54(2):241-53. PubMed ID: 16012095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A confounding effect of missing data on character conflict in maximum likelihood and Bayesian MCMC phylogenetic analyses.
    Simmons MP
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2014 Nov; 80():267-80. PubMed ID: 25173567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bayesian and maximum likelihood phylogenetic analyses of protein sequence data under relative branch-length differences and model violation.
    Mar JC; Harlow TJ; Ragan MA
    BMC Evol Biol; 2005 Jan; 5():8. PubMed ID: 15676079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Collapsing dubiously resolved gene-tree branches in phylogenomic coalescent analyses.
    Simmons MP; Gatesy J
    Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2021 May; 158():107092. PubMed ID: 33545272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative.
    Anisimova M; Gascuel O
    Syst Biol; 2006 Aug; 55(4):539-52. PubMed ID: 16785212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reliability of Bayesian posterior probabilities and bootstrap frequencies in phylogenetics.
    Erixon P; Svennblad B; Britton T; Oxelman B
    Syst Biol; 2003 Oct; 52(5):665-73. PubMed ID: 14530133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The devil in the details: interactions between the branch-length prior and likelihood model affect node support and branch lengths in the phylogeny of the Psoraceae.
    Ekman S; Blaalid R
    Syst Biol; 2011 Jul; 60(4):541-61. PubMed ID: 21436107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case.
    Cummings MP; Handley SA; Myers DS; Reed DL; Rokas A; Winka K
    Syst Biol; 2003 Aug; 52(4):477-87. PubMed ID: 12857639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Overcredibility of molecular phylogenies obtained by Bayesian phylogenetics.
    Suzuki Y; Glazko GV; Nei M
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2002 Dec; 99(25):16138-43. PubMed ID: 12451182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Ultrafast approximation for phylogenetic bootstrap.
    Minh BQ; Nguyen MA; von Haeseler A
    Mol Biol Evol; 2013 May; 30(5):1188-95. PubMed ID: 23418397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fundamental differences between the methods of maximum likelihood and maximum posterior probability in phylogenetics.
    Svennblad B; Erixon P; Oxelman B; Britton T
    Syst Biol; 2006 Feb; 55(1):116-21. PubMed ID: 16507528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Measures of clade confidence do not correlate with accuracy of phylogenetic trees.
    Hall BG; Salipante SJ
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2007 Mar; 3(3):e51. PubMed ID: 17367204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quantification of congruence among gene trees with polytomies using overall success of resolution for phylogenomic coalescent analyses.
    Simmons MP; Goloboff PA; Stöver BC; Springer MS; Gatesy J
    Cladistics; 2023 Oct; 39(5):418-436. PubMed ID: 37096985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence.
    Alfaro ME; Zoller S; Lutzoni F
    Mol Biol Evol; 2003 Feb; 20(2):255-66. PubMed ID: 12598693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.