Michael J. Crawley

Bio: Michael J. Crawley is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Multivariate statistics & Computational statistics. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 6722 citations.

The R Book

Abstract: The high-level language of R is recognized as one of the most powerful and flexible statistical software environments, and is rapidly becoming the standard setting for quantitative analysis, statistics and graphics. R provides free access to unrivalled coverage and cutting-edge applications, enabling the user to apply numerous statistical methods ranging from simple regression to time series or multivariate analysis. Building on the success of the authors bestselling Statistics: An Introduction using R, The R Book is packed with worked examples, providing an all inclusive guide to R, ideal for novice and more accomplished users alike. The book assumes no background in statistics or computing and introduces the advantages of the R environment, detailing its applications in a wide range of disciplines. Provides the first comprehensive reference manual for the R language, including practical guidance and full coverage of the graphics facilities. Introduces all the statistical models covered by R, beginning with simple classical tests such as chi-square and t-test. Proceeds to examine more advance methods, from regression and analysis of variance, through to generalized linear models, generalized mixed models, time series, spatial statistics, multivariate statistics and much more. The R Book is aimed at undergraduates, postgraduates and professionals in science, engineering and medicine. It is also ideal for students and professionals in statistics, economics, geography and the social sciences.

Genome sequence-based species delimitation with confidence intervals and improved distance functions

Abstract: For the last 25 years species delimitation in prokaryotes (Archaea and Bacteria) was to a large extent based on DNA-DNA hybridization (DDH), a tedious lab procedure designed in the early 1970s that served its purpose astonishingly well in the absence of deciphered genome sequences. With the rapid progress in genome sequencing time has come to directly use the now available and easy to generate genome sequences for delimitation of species. GBDP (Genome Blast Distance Phylogeny) infers genome-to-genome distances between pairs of entirely or partially sequenced genomes, a digital, highly reliable estimator for the relatedness of genomes. Its application as an in-silico replacement for DDH was recently introduced. The main challenge in the implementation of such an application is to produce digital DDH values that must mimic the wet-lab DDH values as close as possible to ensure consistency in the Prokaryotic species concept. Correlation and regression analyses were used to determine the best-performing methods and the most influential parameters. GBDP was further enriched with a set of new features such as confidence intervals for intergenomic distances obtained via resampling or via the statistical models for DDH prediction and an additional family of distance functions. As in previous analyses, GBDP obtained the highest agreement with wet-lab DDH among all tested methods, but improved models led to a further increase in the accuracy of DDH prediction. Confidence intervals yielded stable results when inferred from the statistical models, whereas those obtained via resampling showed marked differences between the underlying distance functions. Despite the high accuracy of GBDP-based DDH prediction, inferences from limited empirical data are always associated with a certain degree of uncertainty. It is thus crucial to enrich in-silico DDH replacements with confidence-interval estimation, enabling the user to statistically evaluate the outcomes. Such methodological advancements, easily accessible through the web service at http://ggdc.dsmz.de , are crucial steps towards a consistent and truly genome sequence-based classification of microorganisms.

A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology.

Abstract: The use of linear mixed effects models (LMMs) is increasingly common in the analysis of biological data. Whilst LMMs offer a flexible approach to modelling a broad range of data types, ecological data are often complex and require complex model structures, and the fitting and interpretation of such models is not always straightforward. The ability to achieve robust biological inference requires that practitioners know how and when to apply these tools. Here, we provide a general overview of current methods for the application of LMMs to biological data, and highlight the typical pitfalls that can be encountered in the statistical modelling process. We tackle several issues regarding methods of model selection, with particular reference to the use of information theory and multi-model inference in ecology. We offer practical solutions and direct the reader to key references that provide further technical detail for those seeking a deeper understanding. This overview should serve as a widely accessible code of best practice for applying LMMs to complex biological problems and model structures, and in doing so improve the robustness of conclusions drawn from studies investigating ecological and evolutionary questions.

Using observation-level random effects to model overdispersion in count data in ecology and evolution

Abstract: Overdispersion is common in models of count data in ecology and evolutionary biology, and can occur due to missing covariates, non-independent (aggregated) data, or an excess frequency of zeroes (zero-inflation). Accounting for overdispersion in such models is vital, as failing to do so can lead to biased parameter estimates, and false conclusions regarding hypotheses of interest. Observation-level random effects (OLRE), where each data point receives a unique level of a random effect that models the extra-Poisson variation present in the data, are commonly employed to cope with overdispersion in count data. However studies investigating the efficacy of observation-level random effects as a means to deal with overdispersion are scarce. Here I use simulations to show that in cases where overdispersion is caused by random extra-Poisson noise, or aggregation in the count data, observation-level random effects yield more accurate parameter estimates compared to when overdispersion is simply ignored. Conversely, OLRE fail to reduce bias in zero-inflated data, and in some cases increase bias at high levels of overdispersion. There was a positive relationship between the magnitude of overdispersion and the degree of bias in parameter estimates. Critically, the simulations reveal that failing to account for overdispersion in mixed models can erroneously inflate measures of explained variance (r2), which may lead to researchers overestimating the predictive power of variables of interest. This work suggests use of observation-level random effects provides a simple and robust means to account for overdispersion in count data, but also that their ability to minimise bias is not uniform across all types of overdispersion and must be applied judiciously.

Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner's curse.

Abstract: Fitting generalised linear models (GLMs) with more than one predictor has become the standard method of analysis in evolutionary and behavioural research. Often, GLMs are used for exploratory data analysis, where one starts with a complex full model including interaction terms and then simplifies by removing non-significant terms. While this approach can be useful, it is problematic if significant effects are interpreted as if they arose from a single a priori hypothesis test. This is because model selection involves cryptic multiple hypothesis testing, a fact that has only rarely been acknowledged or quantified. We show that the probability of finding at least one ‘significant’ effect is high, even if all null hypotheses are true (e.g. 40% when starting with four predictors and their two-way interactions). This probability is close to theoretical expectations when the sample size (N) is large relative to the number of predictors including interactions (k). In contrast, type I error rates strongly exceed even those expectations when model simplification is applied to models that are over-fitted before simplification (low N/k ratio). The increase in false-positive results arises primarily from an overestimation of effect sizes among significant predictors, leading to upward-biased effect sizes that often cannot be reproduced in follow-up studies (‘the winner's curse’). Despite having their own problems, full model tests and P value adjustments can be used as a guide to how frequently type I errors arise by sampling variation alone. We favour the presentation of full models, since they best reflect the range of predictors investigated and ensure a balanced representation also of non-significant results.