Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25202649›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences2014

Accuracy and consistency of grass pollen identification by human analysts using electron micrographs of surface ornamentation.

Luke Mander, Sarah J Baker, Claire M Belcher, Derek S Haselhorst, Jacklyn Rodriguez, Jessica L Thorn, Shivangi Tiwari, Dunia H Urrego, Cassandra J Wesseln, Surangi W Punyasena

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Luke ManderCollege of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4PS, United Kingdom.
Sarah J BakerCollege of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4PS, United Kingdom.
Claire M BelcherCollege of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4PS, United Kingdom.
Derek S HaselhorstProgram in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois, 505 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801 USA.
Jacklyn RodriguezDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, 505 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801 USA.
Jessica L ThornCollege of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4PS, United Kingdom.
Shivangi TiwariDepartment of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, Uttarakhand, India.
Dunia H UrregoCollege of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4PS, United Kingdom.
Cassandra J WesselnProgram in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois, 505 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801 USA.
Surangi W PunyasenaDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, 505 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801 USA.
University of Exeter · GBUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USIndian Institute of Technology Roorkee · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledPREMISE OF THE STUDY: Humans frequently identify pollen grains at a taxonomic rank above species. Grass pollen is a classic case of this situation, which has led to the development of computational methods for identifying grass pollen species. This paper aims to provide context for these computational methods by quantifying the accuracy and consistency of human identification. •

methodsWe measured the ability of nine human analysts to identify 12 species of grass pollen using scanning electron microscopy images. These are the same images that were used in computational identifications. We have measured the coverage, accuracy, and consistency of each analyst, and investigated their ability to recognize duplicate images. •

resultsCoverage ranged from 87.5% to 100%. Mean identification accuracy ranged from 46.67% to 87.5%. The identification consistency of each analyst ranged from 32.5% to 87.5%, and each of the nine analysts produced considerably different identification schemes. The proportion of duplicate image pairs that were missed ranged from 6.25% to 58.33%. • DISCUSSION: The identification errors made by each analyst, which result in a decline in accuracy and consistency, are likely related to psychological factors such as the limited capacity of human memory, fatigue and boredom, recency effects, and positivity bias.

Indexed as

automationclassificationexpert analysisidentificationpalynology

Identifiers

PMID25202649
PMCPMC4141715
OpenAlexW2031377957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.