Interpreting the evolutionary regression: the interplay between observational and biological errors in phylogenetic comparative studies
Abstract
Regressions of biological variables across species are rarely perfect. Usually, there are residual deviations from the estimated model relationship, and such deviations commonly show a pattern of phylogenetic correlations indicating that they have biological causes. We discuss the origins and effects of phylogenetically correlated biological variation in regression studies. In particular, we discuss the interplay of biological deviations with deviations due to observational or measurement errors, which are also important in comparative studies based on estimated species means. We show how bias in estimated evolutionary regressions can arise from several sources, including phylogenetic inertia and either observational or biological error in the predictor variables. We show how all these biases can be estimated and corrected for in the presence of phylogenetic correlations. We present general formulas for incorporating measurement error in linear models with correlated data. We also show how alternative regression models, such as major axis and reduced major axis regression, which are often recommended when there is error in predictor variables, are strongly biased when there is biological variation in any part of the model. We argue that such methods should never be used to estimate evolutionary or allometric regression slopes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The precise assumptions of PCMs remain poorly understood to this day.
“and remain poorly understood to this day (Hansen and Orzack 2005;Hansen and Bartoszek 2012).”
From Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods (2018) · cites this paper as Hansen and Bartoszek 2012
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793 · see citing works
Brain Size Allometry Ontogeny and Phylogeny
Martin, R. D., & Harvey, P. H. (1985) · Size and Scaling in Primate Biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3647-9_8 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Campione, N. E., & Evans, D. C. (2012) · BMC Biology · doi:10.1186/1741-7007-10-60 · Cited by 475 · see citing works
Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods
Uyeda, J. C., Zenil-Ferguson, R., & Pennell, M. W. (2018) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syy031 · Cited by 313 · see citing works
Grabowski, M., Voje, K. L., & Hansen, T. F. (2016) · Journal of Human Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.03.001 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hansen, T. F., & Bartoszek, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Hansen, Thomas F.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-01-02
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 413-425
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2102289725
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 27.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Morphological variations and asymmetry
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Statistical and numerical algorithms
- Keywords
- phylogenetic comparative analysis, measurement error, regression bias, phylogenetic inertia, allometric regression, major axis regression, reduced major axis regression, correlated data, linear models, residual autocorrelation
- MeSH terms
- Models, Biological, Phylogeny, Regression Analysis, Bias, Linear Models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review