Robust model comparison and tests of interactions in phylogenetic path analysis: Revisiting "Why are telomeres the length they are?" (Benson et al. 2025).

IF 3 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Evolution Pub Date : 2026-09-21 DOI:10.1093/evolut/qpag171
Alejandro Gonzalez-Voyer, Iker Bargas-Galarraga, Achaz von Hardenberg
{"title":"Robust model comparison and tests of interactions in phylogenetic path analysis: Revisiting \"Why are telomeres the length they are?\" (Benson et al. 2025).","authors":"Alejandro Gonzalez-Voyer, Iker Bargas-Galarraga, Achaz von Hardenberg","doi":"10.1093/evolut/qpag171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We discuss robust model comparison in phylogenetic path analysis and how to incorporate interactions in path analysis with d-separation. We revisit a study by Benson et al. (2025) to highlight the importance of carefully evaluating the causal models being compared to avoid erroneous conclusions. Our results show that there are biologically plausible models, not previously considered, that outperform those in the original study leading to quite different biological conclusions. We also use this work to demonstrate, using empirical data, how interactions can be incorporated in path analyses, and highlight how their presence affects the conditional independencies that must be tested for the model to be considered a plausible causal model. Our commentary highlights the importance of rigorously evaluating model space and verifying both the implied conditional independencies as well as the robustness of the assumed causal effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":12082,"journal":{"name":"Evolution","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/evolut/qpag171","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We discuss robust model comparison in phylogenetic path analysis and how to incorporate interactions in path analysis with d-separation. We revisit a study by Benson et al. (2025) to highlight the importance of carefully evaluating the causal models being compared to avoid erroneous conclusions. Our results show that there are biologically plausible models, not previously considered, that outperform those in the original study leading to quite different biological conclusions. We also use this work to demonstrate, using empirical data, how interactions can be incorporated in path analyses, and highlight how their presence affects the conditional independencies that must be tested for the model to be considered a plausible causal model. Our commentary highlights the importance of rigorously evaluating model space and verifying both the implied conditional independencies as well as the robustness of the assumed causal effects.

强健的模型比较和系统发育路径分析中相互作用的测试:重访“为什么端粒是这样的长度?”(Benson et al. 2025)。
我们讨论了系统发育路径分析中的鲁棒模型比较,以及如何将路径分析中的相互作用与d-分离结合起来。我们回顾了Benson等人(2025)的一项研究,以强调仔细评估被比较的因果模型以避免错误结论的重要性。我们的研究结果表明,有一些生物学上合理的模型,以前没有考虑过,比原始研究中的模型表现得更好,从而得出了完全不同的生物学结论。我们还利用这项工作来证明,使用经验数据,如何将相互作用纳入路径分析,并强调它们的存在如何影响条件独立性,条件独立性必须经过测试,才能被认为是一个合理的因果模型。我们的评论强调了严格评估模型空间和验证隐含的条件独立性以及假设因果效应的稳健性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evolution
Evolution 环境科学-进化生物学
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Evolution, published for the Society for the Study of Evolution, is the premier publication devoted to the study of organic evolution and the integration of the various fields of science concerned with evolution. The journal presents significant and original results that extend our understanding of evolutionary phenomena and processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书