Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23740484›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2013

The effect of sampling rate on observed statistics in a correlated random walk.

G Rosser, A G Fletcher, P K Maini, R E Baker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Tracking random walks.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2018
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

G RosserCentre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, 24-29 St Giles', Oxford OX1 3LB, UK.
A G Fletcher
P K Maini
R E Baker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tracking the movement of individual cells or animals can provide important information about their motile behaviour, with key examples including migrating birds, foraging mammals and bacterial chemotaxis. In many experimental protocols, observations are recorded with a fixed sampling interval and the continuous underlying motion is approximated as a series of discrete steps. The size of the sampling interval significantly affects the tracking measurements, the statistics computed from observed trajectories, and the inferences drawn. Despite the widespread use of tracking data to investigate motile behaviour, many open questions remain about these effects. We use a correlated random walk model to study the variation with sampling interval of two key quantities of interest: apparent speed and angle change. Two variants of the model are considered, in which reorientations occur instantaneously and with a stationary pause, respectively. We employ stochastic simulations to study the effect of sampling on the distributions of apparent speeds and angle changes, and present novel mathematical analysis in the case of rapid sampling. Our investigation elucidates the complex nature of sampling effects for sampling intervals ranging over many orders of magnitude. Results show that inclusion of a stationary phase significantly alters the observed distributions of both quantities.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalModels, StatisticalMovementAnimalsBacterial Physiological PhenomenaBirdsMammalsanimal migrationbacterial motilitycorrelated random walksampling ratetracking

Identifiers

PMID23740484
PMCPMC4043159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.