Caution Needed When Predicting Species Threat Status for Conservation Prioritization on a Global Scale.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Effectiveness of South Africa's network of protected areas: Unassessed vascular plants predicted to be threatened using deep neural networks are all located in protected areas.Ecology and evolution · 2024
   Article
2. Evidence-based guidelines for automated conservation assessments of plant species.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2023
   Article
3. Automated assessment reveals that the extinction risk of reptiles is widely underestimated across space and phylogeny.PLoS biology · 2022
   Article
4. Global Estimation and Mapping of the Conservation Status of Tree Species Using Artificial Intelligence.Frontiers in plant science · 2022
   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

5 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as