The scaling of diversification rates with age is likely explained by sampling bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous phylogenetic studies reported the existence of a pervasive scaling relationship between the ages of extant eukaryotic clades and their estimated diversification rates. The causes of this age-rate-scaling (ARS), whether biological and/or artifactual, remain unresolved. Here we fit diversification models to thousands of eukaryotic time-calibrated phylogenies to explore multiple potential causes of the ARS including parameter non-identifiability, model inadequacy, biases in taxonomic practice, and an important and ubiquitous form of sampling bias-preferentially analyzing larger extant clades. We distinguish between two mechanism by which such sampling biases can cause an ARS: First, by favoring clades that happen to be unusually large merely by chance (i.e., due to the stochastic nature of the cladogenic process), thus leading to rate overestimation, and second, by favoring clades that have truly higher diversification rates. We find that, of the proposed explanations, only sampling biases are likely to contribute to the observed ARS. We develop methods for fully correcting for sampling bias mechanism 1, and find that despite these corrections a substantial ARS remains. We then confirm using simulations that preferring trees with truly higher rates (mechanism 2) likely explains this residual ARS. Since we do not have a completely unbiased sample of clades, including extinct ones, for phylogenetic analyses, it is difficult to demonstrate unambiguously that sampling biases are the sole cause of the ARS. Sampling biases are, however, a parsimonious and plausible explanation for this widely observed macroevolutionary pattern, and this has implications for how we interpret the distribution of diversification rate estimates in extant clades.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".