Cited by 200Morphological variations and asymmetryEvolution and Paleontology StudiesStatistical and numerical algorithms

Interpreting the evolutionary regression: the interplay between observational and biological errors in phylogenetic comparative studies

Hansen, Thomas F., Bartoszek, Krzysztof·2012·Systematic Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1093/sysbio/syr122

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hansen, T. F., & Bartoszek, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
Corresponding author
Hansen, Thomas F.
Venue
Systematic Biology
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