Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38437512›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2024

The Expected Behaviors of Posterior Predictive Tests and Their Unexpected Interpretation.

Luiza Guimarães Fabreti, Lyndon M Coghill, Robert C Thomson, Sebastian Höhna, Jeremy M Brown

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2024. 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

5 authors.

Luiza Guimarães FabretiGeoBio-Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Richard-Wagner-Str. 10, Munich 80333, Germany.
Lyndon M CoghillCenter for Computation & Technology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
Robert C ThomsonSchool of Life Sciences, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8006-1484
Sebastian HöhnaGeoBio-Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Richard-Wagner-Str. 10, Munich 80333, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6519-6292
Jeremy M BrownDepartment of Biological Sciences and Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1447-8633

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Emmy Noether-Programthe National Science Foundation DEB-1355071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Poor fit between models of sequence or trait evolution and empirical data is known to cause biases and lead to spurious conclusions about evolutionary patterns and processes. Bayesian posterior prediction is a flexible and intuitive approach for detecting such cases of poor fit. However, the expected behavior of posterior predictive tests has never been characterized for evolutionary models, which is critical for their proper interpretation. Here, we show that the expected distribution of posterior predictive P-values is generally not uniform, in contrast to frequentist P-values used for hypothesis testing, and extreme posterior predictive P-values often provide more evidence of poor fit than typically appreciated. Posterior prediction assesses model adequacy under highly favorable circumstances, because the model is fitted to the data, which leads to expected distributions that are often concentrated around intermediate values. Nonuniform expected distributions of P-values do not pose a problem for the application of these tests, however, and posterior predictive P-values can be interpreted as the posterior probability that the fitted model would predict a dataset with a test statistic value as extreme as the value calculated from the observed data.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBayes TheoremProbabilityBayesian inferencemodel testingphylogeneticsposterior predictionRevBayes

Identifiers

PMID38437512
PMCPMC10946647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.