ArticleInternational journal of biometeorology2020
Outlier detection methods to improve the quality of citizen science data.
Article in International journal of biometeorology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current Status and Future Opportunities in Modeling Clinical Characteristics of Multiple Sclerosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Integrating multiple observation data sources to facilitate movement modelling of killer whale pods.Movement ecology · 2026Article
- Analyzing the Impact of Family Structure Changes on Children's Stress Levels Using a Stress Biomarker.Journal of health and social behavior · 2024Article
- Navigating Community-Engaged Research to Understand How Drought Affects Water Quality.Journal of environmental health · 2024Article
- Design and Experiment of a Portable Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Device for Convenient Prediction of Leaf Chlorophyll Content.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The written history of plant phenology: shaping primary sources for secondary publications.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Citizen science involves public participation in research, usually through volunteer observation and reporting. Data collected by citizen scientists are a valuable resource in many fields of research that require long-term observations at large geographic scales. However, such data may be perceived as less accurate than those collected by trained professionals. Here, we analyze the quality of data from a plant phenology network, which tracks biological response to climate change. We apply five algorithms designed to detect outlier observations or inconsistent observers. These methods rely on different quantitative approaches, including residuals of linear models, correlations among observers, deviations from multivariate clusters, and percentile-based outlier removal. We evaluated these methods by comparing the resulting cleaned datasets in terms of time series means, spatial data coverage, and spatial autocorrelations after outlier removal. Spatial autocorrelations were used to determine the efficacy of outlier removal, as they are expected to increase if outliers and inconsistent observations are successfully removed. All data cleaning methods resulted in better Moran's I autocorrelation statistics, with percentile-based outlier removal and the clustering method showing the greatest improvement. Methods based on residual analysis of linear models had the strongest impact on the final bloom time mean estimates, but were among the weakest based on autocorrelation analysis. Removing entire sets of observations from potentially unreliable observers proved least effective. In conclusion, percentile-based outlier removal emerges as a simple and effective method to improve reliability of citizen science phenology observations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32671668What 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.