ArticleSystematic biology2023
Model Selection Performance in Phylogenetic Comparative Methods Under Multivariate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Models of Trait Evolution.
Article in Systematic biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discriminating models of trait evolution.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2026Article
- Phylogenetic comparative methods for studying adaptation: the adaptation-inertia framework.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2026Review
- Multi-response phylogenetic mixed models: concepts and application.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Leveraging graphical model techniques to study evolution on phylogenetic networks.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Blouch: Bayesian Linear Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Models for Comparative Hypotheses.Systematic biology · 2024Article
- Fitting and evaluating univariate and multivariate models of within-lineage evolution.Paleobiology · 2023Article
- A Cautionary Note on "A Cautionary Note on the Use of Ornstein Uhlenbeck Models in Macroevolutionary Studies".Systematic biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The advent of fast computational algorithms for phylogenetic comparative methods allows for considering multiple hypotheses concerning the co-adaptation of traits and also for studying if it is possible to distinguish between such models based on contemporary species measurements. Here we demonstrate how one can perform a study with multiple competing hypotheses using mvSLOUCH by analyzing two data sets, one concerning feeding styles and oral morphology in ungulates, and the other concerning fruit evolution in Ferula (Apiaceae). We also perform simulations to determine if it is possible to distinguish between various adaptive hypotheses. We find that Akaike's information criterion corrected for small sample size has the ability to distinguish between most pairs of considered models. However, in some cases there seems to be bias towards Brownian motion or simpler Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models. We also find that measurement error and forcing the sign of the diagonal of the drift matrix for an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process influences identifiability capabilities. It is a cliché that some models, despite being imperfect, are more useful than others. Nonetheless, having a much larger repertoire of models will surely lead to a better understanding of the natural world, as it will allow for dissecting in what ways they are wrong. [Adaptation; AICc; model selection; multivariate Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process; multivariate phylogenetic comparative methods; mvSLOUCH.].
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.