Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26852021›Full record

ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2016

A framework for analyzing the robustness of movement models to variable step discretization.

Ulrike E Schlägel, Mark A Lewis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Ulrike E SchlägelDepartment of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, CAB 632, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G1, Canada. ulrike.schlaegel@gmail.com.
Mark A LewisDepartment of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, CAB 632, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When sampling animal movement paths, the frequency at which location measurements are attempted is a critical feature for data analysis. Important quantities derived from raw data, e.g. travel distance or sinuosity, can differ largely based on the temporal resolution of the data. Likewise, when movement models are fitted to data, parameter estimates have been demonstrated to vary with sampling rate. Thus, biological statements derived from such analyses can only be made with respect to the resolution of the underlying data, limiting extrapolation of results and comparison between studies. To address this problem, we investigate whether there are models that are robust against changes in temporal resolution. First, we propose a mathematically rigorous framework, in which we formally define robustness as a model property. We then use the framework for a thorough assessment of a range of basic random walk models, in which we also show how robustness relates to other probabilistic concepts. While we found robustness to be a strong condition met by few models only, we suggest a new method to extend models so as to make them robust. Our framework provides a new systematic, mathematically founded approach to the question if, and how, sampling rate of movement paths affects statistical inference.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsMotor ActivityReproducibility of ResultsAnimal movementDiscretizationGPS dataParameter estimationRandom walkSampling rate

Identifiers

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.