ReviewJournal of evolutionary biology2026
Phylogenetic comparative methods for studying adaptation: the adaptation-inertia framework.
Review in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sequencing, annotation and analysis of the genome ofLife science alliance · 2026Article
- Stage-specific evolutionary dynamics in pediatric leukemia inferred using Bayesian stochastic modeling.PloS one · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Phylogenetic comparative methods are a major tool for evaluating macroevolutionary hypotheses. Methods based on the mean-reverting stochastic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process allow for modelling adaptation on a phenotypic adaptive landscape that itself evolves and where fitness peaks depend on measured characteristics of the external environment and/or other organismal traits. Here, we give an overview of the conceptual framework for the many implementations of these methods and discuss how we might interpret estimated parameters. We emphasize that the ability to model a changing adaptive landscape sets these methods apart from other approaches and discuss why this aspect captures long-term trait evolution more realistically. Recent multivariate extensions of these methods provide a powerful framework for testing evolutionary hypotheses but are also more complicated to use and interpret. We provide some guidance on their usage and put recent literature on the topic in biological rather than mathematical terms. We further show how these methods provide a starting point for modelling reciprocal selection (i.e., coevolution) between interacting lineages. We then briefly review some critiques of the methodologies. Finally, we provide some ideas for future developments that we think will be useful to evolutionary biologists.
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.