ArticleSystematic biology2023
A Cautionary Note on "A Cautionary Note on the Use of Ornstein Uhlenbeck Models in Macroevolutionary Studies".
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 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nesting behaviour predicts heat tolerance evolution and climate vulnerability in bees.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Phylograms better fit neutrally evolving traits than chronograms.Evolution letters · 2026Article
- Discriminating models of trait evolution.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2026Article
- SCOUT: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck modelling of gene expression evolution on single-cell lineage trees.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Toward a macroevolutionary understanding of live-leaf flammability in plant species of fire-prone forests.American journal of botany · 2025Article
- Compounding heterochrony shapes the salamander visual system across adaptive zones.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Towards a more robust comparative oncology: a Bayesian reanalysis of Peto's paradox and discussion of comparative cancer risk studies in vertebrates.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Evolutionary divergence of induced versus constitutive antiviral gene expression levels between primates and rodents.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Reduced evolutionary constraint accompanies ongoing radiation in deep-sea anglerfishes.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- TraitTrainR: accelerating large-scale simulation under models of continuous trait evolution.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- Blouch: Bayesian Linear Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Models for Comparative Hypotheses.Systematic biology · 2024Article
- Pappus phenotypes and flight performance across evolutionary history in the daisy family.Annals of botany · 2024Article
- Identification of the mode of evolution in incomplete carbonate successions.BMC ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Evolutionary trends in the elasmobranch neurocranium.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Performance of Widely Used Phylogenetic Models for Gene Expression Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Performance of Widely Used Phylogenetic Models for Gene Expression Evolution.bioRxiv : the preprint server for 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Models based on the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process have become standard for the comparative study of adaptation. Cooper et al. (2016) have cast doubt on this practice by claiming statistical problems with fitting Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models to comparative data. Specifically, they claim that statistical tests of Brownian motion may have too high Type I error rates and that such error rates are exacerbated by measurement error. In this note, we argue that these results have little relevance to the estimation of adaptation with Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models for three reasons. First, we point out that Cooper et al. (2016) did not consider the detection of distinct optima (e.g. for different environments), and therefore did not evaluate the standard test for adaptation. Second, we show that consideration of parameter estimates, and not just statistical significance, will usually lead to correct inferences about evolutionary dynamics. Third, we show that bias due to measurement error can be corrected for by standard methods. We conclude that Cooper et al. (2016) have not identified any statistical problems specific to Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models, and that their cautions against their use in comparative analyses are unfounded and misleading. [adaptation, Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model, phylogenetic comparative method.].
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.