{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026666666666666666, 'mean_word_length': 5.30672268907563, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Independent contrasts and PGLS regression estimators are equivalent.

We prove that the slope parameter of the ordinary least squares regression of phylogenetically independent contrasts (PICs) conducted through the origin is identical to the slope parameter of the method of generalized least squares (GLSs) regression under a Brownian motion model of evolution. This equivalence has several implications: 1. Understanding the structure of the linear model for GLS regression provides insight into when and why phylogeny is important in comparative studies. 2. The limitations of the PIC regression analysis are the same as the limitations of the GLS model. In particular, phylogenetic covariance applies only to the response variable in the regression and the explanatory variable should be regarded as fixed. Calculation of PICs for explanatory variables should be treated as a mathematical idiosyncrasy of the PIC regression algorithm. 3. Since the GLS estimator is the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE), the slope parameter estimated using PICs is also BLUE. 4. If the slope is estimated using different branch lengths for the explanatory and response variables in the PIC algorithm, the estimator is no longer the BLUE, so this is not recommended. Finally, we discuss whether or not and how to accommodate phylogenetic covariance in regression analyses, particularly in relation to the problem of phylogenetic uncertainty. This discussion is from both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives.