Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32716917›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Machine learning for modeling animal movement.

Dhanushi A Wijeyakulasuriya, Elizabeth W Eisenhauer, Benjamin A Shaby, Ephraim M Hanks

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Flexible inference for animal learning rules using neural networks.Advances in neural information processing systems · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Spatial- and Temporal-Trajectory Analysis of the Crested Ibis (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dhanushi A WijeyakulasuriyaDepartment of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6244-6575
Elizabeth W EisenhauerDepartment of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA, United States of America.
Benjamin A ShabyDepartment of Statistics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States of America.
Ephraim M HanksDepartment of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, State College, PA, United States of America.
Pennsylvania State University · USColorado State University · US

Funding

From Cells to Societies: Mechanisms by Which Microbial Parasites Control Host PhenotypesR01GM116927 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI CHEN, DANNY ZIYI, HANKS, EPHRAIM · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM116927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal movement drives important ecological processes such as migration and the spread of infectious disease. Current approaches to modeling animal tracking data focus on parametric models used to understand environmental effects on movement behavior and to fill in missing tracking data. Machine Learning and Deep learning algorithms are powerful and flexible predictive modeling tools but have rarely been applied to animal movement data. In this study we present a general framework for predicting animal movement that is a combination of two steps: first predicting movement behavioral states and second predicting the animal's velocity. We specify this framework at the individual level as well as for collective movement. We use Random Forests, Neural and Recurrent Neural Networks to compare performance predicting one step ahead as well as long range simulations. We compare results against a custom constructed Stochastic Differential Equation (SDE) model. We apply this approach to high resolution ant movement data. We found that the individual level Machine Learning and Deep Learning methods outperformed the SDE model for one step ahead prediction. The SDE model did comparatively better at simulating long range movement behaviour. Of the Machine Learning and Deep Learning models the Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) individual level model did best at long range simulations. We also applied the Random Forest and LSTM individual level models to model gull migratory movement to demonstrate the generalizability of this framework. Machine Learning and deep learning models are easier to specify compared to traditional parametric movement models which can have restrictive assumptions. However, machine learning and deep learning models are less interpretable than parametric movement models. The type of model used should be determined by the goal of the study, if the goal is prediction, our study provides evidence that machine learning and deep learning models could be useful tools.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDeep LearningMachine LearningModels, StatisticalNeural Networks, ComputerAnimal MigrationAnimalsAnts

Identifiers

PMID32716917
PMCPMC7384613
OpenAlexW3046206109

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.