ReviewInterface focus2020
On the use of models in understanding the rise of complex life.
Review in Interface focus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The evolution of Gaia(s).Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Eukaryogenesis and oxygen in Earth history.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022Review
- The case and context for atmospheric methane as an exoplanet biosignature.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, several seemingly irreconcilably different models have been proposed for relationships between Earth system processes and the rise of complex life. These models provide very different scenarios of Proterozoic atmospheric oxygen and ocean nutrient levels, whether they constrained complex life, and of how the rise of complex life affected biogeochemical conditions. For non-modellers, it can be hard to evaluate which-if any-of the models and their results have more credence-hence this article. I briefly review relevant hypotheses, how models are being used to incarnate and sometimes test those hypotheses, and key principles of biogeochemical cycling models should embody. Then I critically review the use of biogeochemical models in: inferring key variables from proxies; reconstructing ancient biogeochemical cycling; and examining how complex life affected biogeochemical cycling. Problems are found in published model results purporting to demonstrate long-term stable states of very low Proterozoic atmospheric
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.