Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Survival Tree

Survival Tree

Survival trees are a non-parametric method used in survival analysis to model the relationship between a set of covariates and the time until an event of interest occurs, often referred to as the "time-to-event" or "survival time." This method is particularly useful when dealing with censored data, where the event has not occurred for some individuals by the end of the study period, or when the exact time of the event is unknown.
Building a Survival Tree
Constructing a survival tree begins...

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Min-frame transformation enables more sensitive viral genome alignment.

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology·2026

Same author

TIPP-SD: A new method for species detection in microbiomes.

PLoS computational biology·2026

Same author

Phylogenetic Placement Using SCAMPP and Batch-SCAMPP.

Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)·2026

Same author

The Earth BioGenome Project Phase II: illuminating the eukaryotic tree of life.

Frontiers in science·2026

Same author

BSCAMPP: Batch-Scaled Phylogenetic Placement on Large Trees.

IEEE transactions on computational biology and bioinformatics·2025

Same author

TIPP3 and TIPP3-fast: Improved abundance profiling in metagenomics.

PLoS computational biology·2025

Same journal

Haplotype-aware long-read error correction.

Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB·2026

Same journal

Extension of partial atom-to-atom maps: uniqueness and algorithms.

Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB·2026

Same journal

Lossless pangenome indexing using tag arrays.

Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB·2026

Same journal

Dolphyin: a combinatorial algorithm for identifying 1-Dollo phylogenies in cancer.

Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB·2026

Same journal

Probing transcription factor subsets in gene regulatory networks.

Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB·2026

Same journal

Comparing the ability of embedding methods on metabolic hypergraphs for capturing taxonomy-based features.

Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 17, 2026

Spatial Multiobjective Optimization of Agricultural Conservation Practices using a SWAT Model and an Evolutionary Algorithm

Spatial Multiobjective Optimization of Agricultural Conservation Practices using a SWAT Model and an Evolutionary Algorithm

Published on: December 9, 2012

A simulation study comparing supertree and combined analysis methods using SMIDGen.

M Shel Swenson¹, François Barbançon, Tandy Warnow

¹Department of Computer Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX, USA. mswenson@cs.utexas.edu

Algorithms for Molecular Biology : AMB

|January 6, 2010

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Combined analysis methods, particularly maximum likelihood, yield more accurate phylogenetic trees than supertree methods like matrix representation with parsimony (MRP). This is especially true when the largest subtree doesn't include most taxa.

More Related Videos

A Method for Quantifying Foliage-Dwelling Arthropods

A Method for Quantifying Foliage-Dwelling Arthropods

Published on: October 20, 2019

Multipronged Phenotyping Approaches to Characterize Sugarcane Root Systems

Multipronged Phenotyping Approaches to Characterize Sugarcane Root Systems

Published on: August 17, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 17, 2026

Spatial Multiobjective Optimization of Agricultural Conservation Practices using a SWAT Model and an Evolutionary Algorithm

Spatial Multiobjective Optimization of Agricultural Conservation Practices using a SWAT Model and an Evolutionary Algorithm

Published on: December 9, 2012

A Method for Quantifying Foliage-Dwelling Arthropods

A Method for Quantifying Foliage-Dwelling Arthropods

Published on: October 20, 2019

Multipronged Phenotyping Approaches to Characterize Sugarcane Root Systems

Multipronged Phenotyping Approaches to Characterize Sugarcane Root Systems

Published on: August 17, 2022

Area of Science:

Phylogenetics
Computational Biology
Bioinformatics

Background:

Supertree methods reconstruct large molecular phylogenies by combining individual gene trees.
Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP) is a common supertree technique.
Combined analysis (supermatrix or total evidence) concatenates data for a single tree estimation.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare the accuracy of two supertree methods (MRP and weighted MRP) against combined analysis methods.
To introduce a novel simulation methodology (SMIDGen) for more biologically realistic simulations.
To evaluate method performance on large model trees.

Main Methods:

Extensive simulation study comparing MRP, weighted MRP, and combined analysis.
Utilized a novel simulation methodology, Super-Method Input Data Generator (SMIDGen).
Applied maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony as base methods for comparison.

Main Results:

Combined analysis using maximum likelihood significantly outperformed MRP and weighted MRP.
Improvements were most substantial when the largest subtree did not encompass the majority of taxa.
MRP and weighted MRP produced less accurate trees compared to combined analyses.

Conclusions:

MRP and weighted MRP are less accurate than combined analyses for phylogenetic reconstruction.
There is a need for improved supertree methods, as combined analyses are not always feasible.
The study provides datasets for testing future supertree and combined analysis methods.