Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32845334›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2021

Nothing Wrong with the Analysis of Clades in Comparative Evolutionary Studies: A Reply to Poe et al.

Joanna Baker, Andrew Meade, Mark Pagel, Chris Venditti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joanna BakerSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6BX, UK.
Andrew MeadeSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6BX, UK.
Mark PagelSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6BX, UK.
Chris VendittiSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6BX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a recent paper, Poe et al. assert that scientists should abandon clade-based approaches, particularly those using named taxonomic ranks. Poe et al. attempt to demonstrate that clade selection can have effects on the results of evolutionary analyses but unfortunately fall short of making any robust conclusions. Here, we demonstrate that the assertions made by Poe et al. have two important flaws: (i) an erroneous view of modern phylogenetic comparative methods; and (ii) a lack of statistical rigor in their analyses. We repeat Poe et al.'s analysis but using appropriate phylogenetic comparative approaches. We demonstrate that results remain consistent regardless of the clade definition. We go on to discuss the value of taxonomic groupings and how they can provide meaningful units of comparison in evolutionary study. Unlike the disheartening suggestion to abandon the use of clades, scientists can instead continue to use phylogenetic " corrections" that are already the standard for most comparative evolutionary analyses. [Comparative methods; evolution; phylogeny; taxonomy.].

Indexed as

Phylogeny

Identifiers

PMID32845334
PMCPMC7744035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.