Correcting for Phylogenetic Autocorrelation in Species Sensitivity Distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A species sensitivity distribution (SSD) is a cumulative distribution function of toxicity endpoints for a receptor group. A key assumption when deriving an SSD is that the toxicity data points are independent and identically distributed (iid). This assumption is tenuous, however, because closely related species are more likely to have similar sensitivities than are distantly related species. When the response of 1 species can be partially predicted by the response of another species, there is a dependency or autocorrelation in the data set. To date, phylogenetic relationships and the resulting dependencies in input data sets have been ignored in deriving SSDs. In this paper, we explore the importance of the phylogenetic signal in deriving SSDs using a case studies approach. The case studies involved toxicity data sets for aquatic autotrophs exposed to atrazine and aquatic and avian species exposed to chlorpyrifos. Full and partial data sets were included to explore the influences of differing phylogenetic signal strength and sample size. The phylogenetic signal was significant for some toxicity data sets (i.e., most chlorpyrifos data sets) but not for others (i.e., the atrazine data sets, the chlorpyrifos data sets for all insects, crustaceans, and birds). When a significant phylogenetic signal did occur, effective sample size was reduced. The reduction was large when the signal was strong. In spite of the reduced effective sample sizes, significant phylogenetic signals had little impact on fitted SSDs, even in the tails (e.g., hazardous concentration for 5th percentile species [HC5]). The lack of a phylogenetic signal impact occurred even when we artificially reduced original sample size and increased strength of the phylogenetic signal. We conclude that it is good statistical practice to account for the phylogenetic signal when deriving SSDs because most toxicity data sets do not meet the independence assumption. That said, SSDs and HC5s are robust to deviations from the independence assumption. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1–13. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".