Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32808814›Full record

ArticleAstrobiology2020

Evaluating Biosignatures for Life Detection.

Andrew Pohorille, Joanna Sokolowska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Astrobiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Andrew PohorilleExobiology Branch, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA.
Joanna SokolowskaSWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conceptual frameworks are developed for evaluating the ability of different biosignatures to provide evidence for the presence of life in planned missions or observational studies. The focus is on intrinsic characteristics of biosignatures in space environments rather than on their detection, which depends on technology. Evaluation procedures are drawn from extensive studies in decision theory on related problems in business, engineering, medical fields, and the social arena. Three approaches are particularly useful. Two of them, Signal Detection Theory and Bayesian hypothesis testing, are based on probabilities. The third approach is based on utility theory. In all the frameworks, knowledge about a subject matter has to be translated into probabilities and/or utilities in a multistep process called elicitation. We present the first attempt to cover all steps, from acquiring knowledge about biosignatures to assigning probabilities or utilities to global quantities, such as false positives and false negatives. Since elicitation involves human judgment that is always prone to perceptual and cognitive biases, the relevant biases are discussed and illustrated in examples. We further discuss at which stage of elicitation human judgment should be involved to ensure the most reliable outcomes. An example, how evaluating biosignatures might be implemented, is given in the Supplementary Information.

Indexed as

ExobiologyExtraterrestrial EnvironmentBayes TheoremProbabilityBayesian hypothesis testing. Astrobiology 20, 1236–1250BiosignaturesDecision theoryLife detectionSignal Detection TheoryUtility theory

Identifiers

PMID32808814
PMCPMC7591378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.