ArticleBiology methods & protocols2024
An extended multiplicative error model of allometry: Incorporating systematic components, non-normal distributions, and piecewise heteroscedasticity.
Article in Biology methods & protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Allometry refers to the relationship between the size of a trait and that of the whole body of an organism. Pioneering observations by Otto Snell and further elucidation by D'Arcy Thompson set the stage for its integration into Huxley's explanation of constant relative growth that epitomizes through the formula of simple allometry. The traditional method to identify such a model conforms to a regression protocol fitted in the direct scales of data. It involves Huxley's formula-systematic part and a lognormally distributed multiplicative error term. In many instances of allometric examination, the predictive strength of this paradigm is unsuitable. Established approaches to improve fit enhance the complexity of the systematic relationship while keeping the go-along normality-borne error. These extensions followed Huxley's idea that considering a biphasic allometric pattern could be necessary. However, for present data composing 10 410 pairs of measurements of individual eelgrass leaf dry weight and area, a fit relying on a biphasic systematic term and multiplicative lognormal errors barely improved correspondence measure values while maintaining a heavy tails problem. Moreover, the biphasic form and multiplicative-lognormal-mixture errors did not provide complete fit dependability either. However, updating the outline of such an error term to allow heteroscedasticity to occur in a piecewise-like mode finally produced overall fit consistency. Our results demonstrate that when attempting to achieve fit quality improvement in a Huxley's model-based multiplicative error scheme, allowing for a complex allometry form for the systematic part, a non-normal distribution-driven error term and a composite of uneven patterns to describe the heteroscedastic outline could be essential.
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.