Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28811886›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2017

Comparison of photo-matching algorithms commonly used for photographic capture-recapture studies.

Maximilian Matthé, Marco Sannolo, Kristopher Winiarski, Annemarieke Spitzen-van der Sluijs, Daniel Goedbloed, Sebastian Steinfartz, Ulrich Stachow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. SealID: Saimaa Ringed Seal Re-Identification Dataset.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Maximilian MatthéVodafone Chair Mobile Communication Systems Technical University Dresden Dresden Germany.
Marco SannoloCIBIO, Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources InBIO Universidade do Porto Campus de Vairão Vila do Conde Portugal.
Kristopher WiniarskiDepartment of Environmental Conservation University of Massachusetts Amherst MA USA.
Annemarieke Spitzen-van der SluijsReptile, Amphibian and Fish Conservation the Netherlands Nijmegen the Netherlands.
Daniel GoedbloedDepartment of Evolutionary Biology Zoological Institute Technische Universität Braunschweig Braunschweig Germany.
Sebastian SteinfartzDepartment of Evolutionary Biology Zoological Institute Technische Universität Braunschweig Braunschweig Germany.
Ulrich StachowLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF Müncheberg Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Photographic capture-recapture is a valuable tool for obtaining demographic information on wildlife populations due to its noninvasive nature and cost-effectiveness. Recently, several computer-aided photo-matching algorithms have been developed to more efficiently match images of unique individuals in databases with thousands of images. However, the identification accuracy of these algorithms can severely bias estimates of vital rates and population size. Therefore, it is important to understand the performance and limitations of state-of-the-art photo-matching algorithms prior to implementation in capture-recapture studies involving possibly thousands of images. Here, we compared the performance of four photo-matching algorithms; Wild-ID, I3S Pattern+, APHIS, and AmphIdent using multiple amphibian databases of varying image quality. We measured the performance of each algorithm and evaluated the performance in relation to database size and the number of matching images in the database. We found that algorithm performance differed greatly by algorithm and image database, with recognition rates ranging from 100% to 22.6% when limiting the review to the 10 highest ranking images. We found that recognition rate degraded marginally with increased database size and could be improved considerably with a higher number of matching images in the database. In our study, the pixel-based algorithm of AmphIdent exhibited superior recognition rates compared to the other approaches. We recommend carefully evaluating algorithm performance prior to using it to match a complete database. By choosing a suitable matching algorithm, databases of sizes that are unfeasible to match "by eye" can be easily translated to accurate individual capture histories necessary for robust demographic estimates.

Indexed as

AmphIdentAPHIScapture–recaptureI3Sphotographic identificationWild‐ID

Identifiers

PMID28811886
PMCPMC5552938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.