Alternative methods for calculating percentage prediction error and their implications for predicting body mass in fossil taxa

Alternative methods for calculating percentage prediction error and their implications for... Since body mass covaries with many ecological aspects of an animal, body mass prediction of fossil taxa is a frequent goal of paleontologists. Body mass prediction often relies on a body mass prediction equation (BMPE): a bivariate relationship between a predictor variable (e.g., molar occlusal area, femoral head breadth) and body mass as observed in extant taxa. A variety of metrics have been used to assess the reliability of BMPEs, including percentage prediction error (%PE), which involves predicting body masses of a test sample comprising individuals with associated masses. A mean %PE can be calculated in two ways: 1) as the mean %PE of multiple individual predictions (%MPE), or 2) as the %PE of mean body mass generated from the mean predictor value of multiple individuals (here termed %PEM). Differences between these two approaches have never been formally examined and no formal protocols have been recommended. Using a large sample of cercopithecoid primates (406 individuals from 50 species/subspecies) with associated body masses, body mass is predicted with six previously published interspecific BMPEs. Both %MPE and %PEM are calculated and compared. For all BMPEs, the distributions of differences between %MPE and %PEM exhibit positive skew and have medians significantly greater than zero, indicating that the examined prediction equations are more accurate at predicting mean body mass when they are applied to mean predictor values. The decreased predictive accuracy of %MPE relative to %PEM likely stems from changing the unit of analysis from mean values (in the reference sample) to individual values (in the test sample) when calculating %MPE. Empirical results are supported with a simulated dataset. Implications for body mass prediction in fossil species are discussed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Human Evolution Elsevier

Alternative methods for calculating percentage prediction error and their implications for predicting body mass in fossil taxa

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/alternative-methods-for-calculating-percentage-prediction-error-and-oLd1afNtKi
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0047-2484
eISSN
1095-8606
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.03.001
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Since body mass covaries with many ecological aspects of an animal, body mass prediction of fossil taxa is a frequent goal of paleontologists. Body mass prediction often relies on a body mass prediction equation (BMPE): a bivariate relationship between a predictor variable (e.g., molar occlusal area, femoral head breadth) and body mass as observed in extant taxa. A variety of metrics have been used to assess the reliability of BMPEs, including percentage prediction error (%PE), which involves predicting body masses of a test sample comprising individuals with associated masses. A mean %PE can be calculated in two ways: 1) as the mean %PE of multiple individual predictions (%MPE), or 2) as the %PE of mean body mass generated from the mean predictor value of multiple individuals (here termed %PEM). Differences between these two approaches have never been formally examined and no formal protocols have been recommended. Using a large sample of cercopithecoid primates (406 individuals from 50 species/subspecies) with associated body masses, body mass is predicted with six previously published interspecific BMPEs. Both %MPE and %PEM are calculated and compared. For all BMPEs, the distributions of differences between %MPE and %PEM exhibit positive skew and have medians significantly greater than zero, indicating that the examined prediction equations are more accurate at predicting mean body mass when they are applied to mean predictor values. The decreased predictive accuracy of %MPE relative to %PEM likely stems from changing the unit of analysis from mean values (in the reference sample) to individual values (in the test sample) when calculating %MPE. Empirical results are supported with a simulated dataset. Implications for body mass prediction in fossil species are discussed.

Journal

Journal of Human EvolutionElsevier

Published: Feb 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off