The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters
Abstract
Although many of the statistical techniques used in comparative biology were originally developed in quantitative genetics, subsequent development of comparative techniques has progressed in relative isolation. Consequently, many of the new and planned developments in comparative analysis already have well-tested solutions in quantitative genetics. In this paper, we take three recent publications that develop phylogenetic meta-analysis, either implicitly or explicitly, and show how they can be considered as quantitative genetic models. We highlight some of the difficulties with the proposed solutions, and demonstrate that standard quantitative genetic theory and software offer solutions. We also show how results from Bayesian quantitative genetics can be used to create efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms for phylogenetic mixed models, thereby extending their generality to non-Gaussian data. Of particular utility is the development of multinomial models for analysing the evolution of discrete traits, and the development of multi-trait models in which traits can follow different distributions. Meta-analyses often include a nonrandom collection of species for which the full phylogenetic tree has only been partly resolved. Using missing data theory, we show how the presented models can be used to correct for nonrandom sampling and show how taxonomies and phylogenies can be combined to give a flexible framework with which to model dependence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444
Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1953) · The Journal of Chemical Physics · doi:10.1063/1.1699114 · Cited by 37,192
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications.
Hastings, W. K. (1970) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/57.1.97 · Cited by 15,195
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Statistical Analysis with Missing Data
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119013563 · Cited by 8,473
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/j.1467-985x.2008.00552.x · Cited by 2,569 · cited 1×
“This type of assumption has been criticized even in the context of controlled clinical trials (Higgins et al., 2009), and would seem untenable when the data are associated with different species (West & Sheldon, 2002).”
Method
Cited by
Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists.
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2010) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00141.x · Cited by 2,584
Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25753 · Cited by 1,709
Self-citationMethodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032
Self-citationA Linear-Time Algorithm for Gaussian and Non-Gaussian Trait Evolution Models
Tung Ho, L. S., & Ané, C. (2014) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syu005 · Cited by 1,085
The evolution of social monogamy in mammals
Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1238677 · Cited by 678
Metadata
- Authors
- Hadfield, J. D., & Nakagawa, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Evolutionary Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-03-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 494-508
- ISSN
- 1010-061X (ISSN-L)
- 1420-9101
- OpenAlex
- W2067820920
- Cited by
- 822
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 44.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01915.x
- The paper
- Hadfield, J. D., & Nakagawa, S. (2010). General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01915.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.