ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2012
Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty.
Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting unknown mammalian viral hosts with Dynamic Positive-Unlabeled learning.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Discriminating models of trait evolution.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2026Article
- Robust regression rescues poor phylogenetic decisions.BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Phylogenetic Conservatism and Ambient Temperature Shape Spatial Variation in Bat Occupancy and Species Richness Along a Subtropical Elevational Gradient.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Low but significant evolutionary potential for growth, phenology and reproduction traits in European beech.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Geographic range size and rarity of epiphytic flowering plants.Nature plants · 2025Article
- Multi-response phylogenetic mixed models: concepts and application.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- A Tale of Too Many Trees: A Conundrum for Phylogenetic Regression.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Demographic consequences of phenological asynchrony for North American songbirds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Abiotic conditions shape spatial and temporal morphological variation in North American birds.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Article
- Challenges and opportunities for comparative studies of survival rates: An example with male pinnipeds.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- HIV-1 p24Gag adaptation to modern and archaic HLA-allele frequency differences in ethnic groups contributes to viral subtype diversification.Virus evolution · 2020Article
- Examining the link between relaxed predation and bird coloration on islands.Biology letters · 2020Article
- Narrow habitat breadth and late-summer emergence increases extinction vulnerability in Central European bees.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Article
- To spend or to save? Assessing energetic growth-storage tradeoffs in native and invasive woody plants.Oecologia · 2018Article
- Phylogenetic homogenization of amphibian assemblages in human-altered habitats across the globe.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Successful conservation of global waterbird populations depends on effective governance.Nature · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUncertainty in comparative analyses can come from at least two sources: a) phylogenetic uncertainty in the tree topology or branch lengths, and b) uncertainty due to intraspecific variation in trait values, either due to measurement error or natural individual variation. Most phylogenetic comparative methods do not account for such uncertainties. Not accounting for these sources of uncertainty leads to false perceptions of precision (confidence intervals will be too narrow) and inflated significance in hypothesis testing (e.g. p-values will be too small). Although there is some application-specific software for fitting Bayesian models accounting for phylogenetic error, more general and flexible software is desirable.
methodsWe developed models to directly incorporate phylogenetic uncertainty into a range of analyses that biologists commonly perform, using a Bayesian framework and Markov Chain Monte Carlo analyses.
resultsWe demonstrate applications in linear regression, quantification of phylogenetic signal, and measurement error models. Phylogenetic uncertainty was incorporated by applying a prior distribution for the phylogeny, where this distribution consisted of the posterior tree sets from Bayesian phylogenetic tree estimation programs. The models were analysed using simulated data sets, and applied to a real data set on plant traits, from rainforest plant species in Northern Australia. Analyses were performed using the free and open source software OpenBUGS and JAGS.
conclusionsIncorporating phylogenetic uncertainty through an empirical prior distribution of trees leads to more precise estimation of regression model parameters than using a single consensus tree and enables a more realistic estimation of confidence intervals. In addition, models incorporating measurement errors and/or individual variation, in one or both variables, are easily formulated in the Bayesian framework. We show that BUGS is a useful, flexible general purpose tool for phylogenetic comparative analyses, particularly for modelling in the face of phylogenetic uncertainty and accounting for measurement error or individual variation in explanatory variables. Code for all models is provided in the BUGS model description language.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.