↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, June 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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 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
Bayesian models for comparative analysis integrating phylogenetic uncertainty
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-12-102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre de Villemereuil, Jessie A Wells, Robert D Edwards, Simon P Blomberg

Abstract

Uncertainty in comparative analyses can come from at least two sources: a) phylogenetic uncertainty in the tree topology or branch lengths, and b) uncertainty due to intraspecific variation in trait values, either due to measurement error or natural individual variation. Most phylogenetic comparative methods do not account for such uncertainties. Not accounting for these sources of uncertainty leads to false perceptions of precision (confidence intervals will be too narrow) and inflated significance in hypothesis testing (e.g. p-values will be too small). Although there is some application-specific software for fitting Bayesian models accounting for phylogenetic error, more general and flexible software is desirable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 3%
Brazil 5 2%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 229 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 29%
Researcher 60 23%
Student > Master 26 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Student > Postgraduate 15 6%
Other 51 20%
Unknown 15 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 178 69%
Environmental Science 23 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 5%
Computer Science 8 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 2%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 18 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 03 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,465,722
of 21,181,573 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#320
of 2,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,017
of 173,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,181,573 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 173,396 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them