↓ Skip to main content

Independent Contrasts and PGLS Regression Estimators Are Equivalent

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Biology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Independent Contrasts and PGLS Regression Estimators Are Equivalent
Published in
Systematic Biology, January 2012
DOI 10.1093/sysbio/syr118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon P. Blomberg, James G. Lefevre, Jessie A. Wells, Mary Waterhouse

Abstract

We prove that the slope parameter of the ordinary least squares regression of phylogenetically independent contrasts (PICs) conducted through the origin is identical to the slope parameter of the method of generalized least squares (GLSs) regression under a Brownian motion model of evolution. This equivalence has several implications: 1. Understanding the structure of the linear model for GLS regression provides insight into when and why phylogeny is important in comparative studies. 2. The limitations of the PIC regression analysis are the same as the limitations of the GLS model. In particular, phylogenetic covariance applies only to the response variable in the regression and the explanatory variable should be regarded as fixed. Calculation of PICs for explanatory variables should be treated as a mathematical idiosyncrasy of the PIC regression algorithm. 3. Since the GLS estimator is the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE), the slope parameter estimated using PICs is also BLUE. 4. If the slope is estimated using different branch lengths for the explanatory and response variables in the PIC algorithm, the estimator is no longer the BLUE, so this is not recommended. Finally, we discuss whether or not and how to accommodate phylogenetic covariance in regression analyses, particularly in relation to the problem of phylogenetic uncertainty. This discussion is from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 4%
Brazil 5 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Costa Rica 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 264 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 29%
Researcher 47 16%
Student > Master 42 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 18 6%
Other 50 17%
Unknown 26 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 199 68%
Environmental Science 26 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 3%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 35 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,396,966
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Biology
#365
of 1,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,227
of 256,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Biology
#3
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 256,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.