ArticlePloS one2017
Data integration for inference about spatial processes: A model-based approach to test and account for data inconsistency.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Multiple Data Sources Improves Abundance Estimation in Spatial Capture-Recapture Models.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrated animal movement and spatial capture-recapture models: Simulation, implementation, and inference.Ecology · 2022Article
- Spatial density estimates of Eurasian lynx (Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
- Simulation-based validation of spatial capture-recapture models: A case study using mountain lions.PloS one · 2019Article
- Toward reliable population estimates of wolves by combining spatial capture-recapture models and non-invasive DNA monitoring.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently-developed methods that integrate multiple data sources arising from the same ecological processes have typically utilized structured data from well-defined sampling protocols (e.g., capture-recapture and telemetry). Despite this new methodological focus, the value of opportunistic data for improving inference about spatial ecological processes is unclear and, perhaps more importantly, no procedures are available to formally test whether parameter estimates are consistent across data sources and whether they are suitable for integration. Using data collected on the reintroduced brown bear population in the Italian Alps, a population of conservation importance, we combined data from three sources: traditional spatial capture-recapture data, telemetry data, and opportunistic data. We developed a fully integrated spatial capture-recapture (SCR) model that included a model-based test for data consistency to first compare model estimates using different combinations of data, and then, by acknowledging data-type differences, evaluate parameter consistency. We demonstrate that opportunistic data lend itself naturally to integration within the SCR framework and highlight the value of opportunistic data for improving inference about space use and population size. This is particularly relevant in studies of rare or elusive species, where the number of spatial encounters is usually small and where additional observations are of high value. In addition, our results highlight the importance of testing and accounting for inconsistencies in spatial information from structured and unstructured data so as to avoid the risk of spurious or averaged estimates of space use and consequently, of population size. Our work supports the use of a single modeling framework to combine spatially-referenced data while also accounting for parameter consistency.
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.