ArticlePloS one2018
Simplified procedure for efficient and unbiased population size estimation.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Correction: Simplified procedure for efficient and unbiased population size estimation.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Population size estimation is relevant to social and ecological sciences. Exhaustive manual counting, the density method and automated computer vision are some of the estimation methods that are currently used. Some of these methods may work in concrete cases but they do not provide a fast, efficient and unbiased estimation in general. Recently, the CountEm method, based on systematic sampling with a grid of quadrats, was proposed. It offers an unbiased estimation that can be applied to any population. However, choosing suitable grid parameters is sometimes cumbersome. Here we define a more intuitive grid parametrization, using initial number of quadrats and sampling fraction. A crowd counting dataset with 51 images and their corresponding, manually annotated position point patterns, are used to analyze the variation of the coefficient of error with respect to different parameter choices. Our Monte Carlo resampling results show that the error depends on the sample size and the number of nonempty quadrats, but not on the size of the target population. A procedure to choose suitable parameter values is described, and the expected coefficients of error are given. Counting about 100 particles in 30 nonempty quadrats usually yields coefficients of error below 10%.
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.