ArticleMethods in ecology and evolution2017
How many more? Sample size determination in studies of morphological integration and evolvability.
Article in Methods in ecology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modularity and integration of the neural arch and vertebral centrum in primates.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Article
- Phenotypic covariation predicts diversification in an adaptive radiation of pupfishes.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- An effect size for comparing the strength of morphological integration across studies.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2022Article
- On Information Rank Deficiency in Phenotypic Covariance Matrices.Systematic biology · 2022Article
- 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
- Using the resurrection approach to understand contemporary evolution in changing environments.Evolutionary applications · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
1. The variational properties of living organisms are an important component of current evolutionary theory. As a consequence, researchers working on the field of multivariate evolution have increasingly used integration and evolvability statistics as a way of capturing the potentially complex patterns of trait association and their effects over evolutionary trajectories. Little attention has been paid, however, to the cascading effects that inaccurate estimates of trait covariance have on these widely used evolutionary statistics. 2. Here, we analyze the relationship between sampling effort and inaccuracy in evolvability and integration statistics calculated from 10-trait matrices with varying patterns of covariation and magnitudes of integration. We then extrapolate our initial approach to different numbers of traits and different magnitudes of integration and estimate general equations relating the inaccuracy of the statistics of interest to sampling effort. We validate our equations using a dataset of cranial traits, and use them to make sample size recommendations. 3. Our results suggest that highly inaccurate estimates of evolvability and integration statistics resulting from small sample sizes are likely common in the literature, given the sampling effort necessary to properly estimate them. We also show that patterns of covariation have no effect on the sampling properties of these statistics, but overall magnitudes of integration interact with sample size and lead to varying degrees of bias, imprecision, and inaccuracy. 4. Finally, we provide R functions that can be used to calculate recommended sample sizes or to simply estimate the level of inaccuracy that should be expected in these statistics, given a sampling design.
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.