Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42131129›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2026

A Critical Look at Directional Random Walk Modeling of Sparse Fossil Data.

Rolf Ergon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Rolf ErgonUniversity of South-Eastern Norway Notodden Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2393-2997

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The general random walk model (GRW) of Hunt is used to infer directional evolution in mean trait values from sparse fossil data. Such evolutions are modeled as the accumulated result of small steps with mean step sizes and step variances. As shown in simulations and real data cases, the mean step sizes are often easy to estimate from data, except for cases where the mean step size is small compared to the step variance. The step variances, on the other hand, can be estimated reasonably well only when the mean trait values have small measurement errors, but even here the step variance estimation may be difficult. For fossil data with realistic measurement errors, the step variances appear to be extremely difficult to find, and they are often found to be negative. They must then be set to zero, such that GRW collapses into deterministic walk processes plus sampling errors. As a result of poor step variance estimates, the directional evolution may be both under- and overestimated as compared with generalized least squares (GLS) results, which gives the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE) of the evolutionary slope. Here, I study this problem through simulations as well as in four real data cases. Based on weighted mean square error (WMSE) comparisons, my conclusion is that GLS in cases with large measurement errors is the best method for inference of directional evolution. When the step variances must be set to zero, GLS is simplified into weighted least squares (WLS) estimation.

Indexed as

generalized least squares estimationgeneral random walk modelmean step valuestep varianceweighted least squares estimation

Identifiers

PMID42131129
PMCPMC13167227

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.