ArticlePloS one2013
Resampling-based approaches to study variation in morphological modularity.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Covariance patterns between ramus morphology and the rest of the face: A geometric morphometric study.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2023Article
- Does divergence from normal patterns of integration increase as chromosomal fusions increase in number? A test on a house mouse hybrid zone.Current zoology · 2020Article
- Measuring the magnitude of morphological integration: The effect of differences in morphometric representations and the inclusion of size.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2019Article
- Divergent Allometric Trajectories in Gene Expression and Coexpression Produce Species Differences in Sympatrically Speciating Midas Cichlid Fish.Genome biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Dental integration and modularity in pinnipeds.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Phylogenetic conservatism in skulls and evolutionary lability in limbs - morphological evolution across an ancient frog radiation is shaped by diet, locomotion and burrowing.BMC evolutionary biology · 2017Article
- Effects of cranial integration on hominid endocranial shape.Journal of anatomy · 2017Article
- Measurement error in geometric morphometrics.Development genes and evolution · 2016Review
- Are sympatrically speciating Midas cichlid fish special? Patterns of morphological and genetic variation in the closely related species Archocentrus centrarchus.Ecology and evolution · 2016Article
- Shape variation and covariation of upper and lower dental arches of an orthodontic population.European journal of orthodontics · 2016Article
- Chromosomal rearrangements, phenotypic variation and modularity: a case study from a contact zone between house mouse Robertsonian races in Central Italy.Ecology and evolution · 2016Article
- Article
- Measuring multivariate association and beyond.Statistics surveys · 2016Article
- Modularity and intra-floral integration in metameric organisms: plants are more than the sum of their parts.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2014Review
- Assessing trait covariation and morphological integration on phylogenies using evolutionary covariance matrices.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modularity has been suggested to be connected to evolvability because a higher degree of independence among parts allows them to evolve as separate units. Recently, the Escoufier RV coefficient has been proposed as a measure of the degree of integration between modules in multivariate morphometric datasets. However, it has been shown, using randomly simulated datasets, that the value of the RV coefficient depends on sample size. Also, so far there is no statistical test for the difference in the RV coefficient between a priori defined groups of observations. Here, we (1), using a rarefaction analysis, show that the value of the RV coefficient depends on sample size also in real geometric morphometric datasets; (2) propose a permutation procedure to test for the difference in the RV coefficient between a priori defined groups of observations; (3) show, through simulations, that such a permutation procedure has an appropriate Type I error; (4) suggest that a rarefaction procedure could be used to obtain sample-size-corrected values of the RV coefficient; and (5) propose a nearest-neighbor procedure that could be used when studying the variation of modularity in geographic space. The approaches outlined here, readily extendable to non-morphometric datasets, allow study of the variation in the degree of integration between a priori defined modules. A Java application--that will allow performance of the proposed test using a software with graphical user interface--has also been developed and is available at the Morphometrics at Stony Brook Web page (http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/).
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.