↓ Skip to main content

How well can the exponential-growth coalescent approximate constant-rate birth–death population dynamics?

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
How well can the exponential-growth coalescent approximate constant-rate birth–death population dynamics?
Published in
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, May 2015
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2015.0420
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

One of the central objectives in the field of phylodynamics is the quantification of population dynamic processes using genetic sequence data or in some cases phenotypic data. Phylodynamics has been successfully applied to many different processes, such as the spread of infectious diseases, within-host evolution of a pathogen, macroevolution and even language evolution. Phylodynamic analysis requires a probability distribution on phylogenetic trees spanned by the genetic data. Because such a probability distribution is not available for many common stochastic population dynamic processes, coalescent-based approximations assuming deterministic population size changes are widely employed. Key to many population dynamic models, in particular epidemiological models, is a period of exponential population growth during the initial phase. Here, we show that the coalescent does not well approximate stochastic exponential population growth, which is typically modelled by a birth-death process. We demonstrate that introducing demographic stochasticity into the population size function of the coalescent improves the approximation for values of R0 close to 1, but substantial differences remain for large R0. In addition, the computational advantage of using an approximation over exact models vanishes when introducing such demographic stochasticity. These results highlight that we need to increase efforts to develop phylodynamic tools that correctly account for the stochasticity of population dynamic models for inference.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Brazil 3 3%
United States 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 104 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 26%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Mathematics 8 7%
Computer Science 8 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 24 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2025.
All research outputs
#4,073,055
of 31,698,485 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#5,619
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,658
of 296,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#77
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,698,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.