ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2017
Catching ghosts with a coarse net: use and abuse of spatial sampling data in detecting synchronization.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2017. 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.
- Article
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
Synchronization of population dynamics in different habitats is a frequently observed phenomenon. A common mathematical tool to reveal synchronization is the (cross)correlation coefficient between time courses of values of the population size of a given species where the population size is evaluated from spatial sampling data. The corresponding sampling net or grid is often coarse, i.e. it does not resolve all details of the spatial configuration, and the evaluation error-i.e. the difference between the true value of the population size and its estimated value-can be considerable. We show that this estimation error can make the value of the correlation coefficient very inaccurate or even irrelevant. We consider several population models to show that the value of the correlation coefficient calculated on a coarse sampling grid rarely exceeds 0.5, even if the true value is close to 1, so that the synchronization is effectively lost. We also observe 'ghost synchronization' when the correlation coefficient calculated on a coarse sampling grid is close to 1 but in reality the dynamics are not correlated. Finally, we suggest a simple test to check the sampling grid coarseness and hence to distinguish between the true and artifactual values of the correlation coefficient.
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.