ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2020
Lessons Learned from Bugs in Models of Human History.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three open questions in polygenic score portability.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Determining the driving factors shaping genetic architecture of complex traits in recently admixed populations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Accessible, Realistic Genome Simulation with Selection Using stdpopsim.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Accessible, realistic genome simulation with selection using stdpopsim.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- tstrait: a quantitative trait simulator for ancestral recombination graphs.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- tstrait: a quantitative trait simulator for ancestral recombination graphs.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Expanding the stdpopsim species catalog, and lessons learned for realistic genome simulations.eLife · 2023Article
- Demes: a standard format for demographic models.Genetics · 2022Article
- Polygenic score accuracy in ancient samples: Quantifying the effects of allelic turnover.PLoS genetics · 2022Article
- Efficient ancestry and mutation simulation with msprime 1.0.Genetics · 2022Article
- Populations, Traits, and Their Spatial Structure in Humans.Genome biology and evolution · 2021Review
- Negative selection on complex traits limits phenotype prediction accuracy between populations.American journal of human genetics · 2021Article
- Human Demographic History Impacts Genetic Risk Prediction across Diverse Populations.American journal of human genetics · 2020Article
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
Abstract
Simulation plays a central role in population genomics studies. Recent years have seen rapid improvements in software efficiency that make it possible to simulate large genomic regions for many individuals sampled from large numbers of populations. As the complexity of the demographic models we study grows, however, there is an ever-increasing opportunity to introduce bugs in their implementation. Here, we describe two errors made in defining population genetic models using the msprime coalescent simulator that have found their way into the published record. We discuss how these errors have affected downstream analyses and give recommendations for software developers and users to reduce the risk of such errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.