ArticlePloS one2016
Effects of Photo and Genotype-Based Misidentification Error on Estimates of Survival, Detection and State Transition using Multistate Survival Models.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of photo-matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture-recapture studies.Ecology and evolution · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We simulated multistate capture histories (CHs) by varying state survival (ϕ), detection (p) and transition (ψ), number of total capture occasions and releases per capture occasion and then modified these scenarios to mimic false rejection error (FRE), a common misidentification error, resulting from the failure to match samples of the same individual. We then fit a multistate model and estimated accuracy, bias and precision of state-specific ϕ, p and ψ to better understand the effects of FRE on different simulation scenarios. As expected, ϕ, and p, decreased in accuracy with FRE, with lower accuracy when CHs were simulated under a shorter-term study and a lower number of releases per capture occasion (lower sample size). Accuracy of ψ estimates were robust to FRE except in those CH scenarios simulated using low sample size. The effect of FRE on bias was not consistent among parameters and differed by CH scenario. As expected, ϕ was negatively biased with increased FRE (except for the low ϕ low p CH scenario simulated with a low sample size), but we found that the magnitude of bias differed by scenario (high p CH scenarios were more negatively biased). State transition was relatively unbiased, except for the low p CH scenarios simulated with a low sample size, which were positively biased with FRE, and high p CH scenarios simulated with a low sample size. The effect of FRE on precision was not consistent among parameters and differed by scenario and sample size. Precision of ϕ decreased with FRE and was lowest with the low ϕ low p CH scenarios. Precision of p estimates also decreased with FRE under all scenarios, except the low ϕ high p CH scenarios. However, precision of ψ increased with FRE, except for those CH scenarios simulated with a low sample size. Our results demonstrate how FRE leads to loss of accuracy in parameter estimates in a multistate model with the exception of ψ when estimated using an adequate sample size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.