Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32844053›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Of power and despair in cetacean conservation: estimation and detection of trend in abundance with noisy and short time-series.

Matthieu Authier, Anders Galatius, Anita Gilles, Jérôme Spitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Matthieu AuthierObservatoire Pelagis UMS3462 CNRS-La Rochelle Université, La Rochelle Université, La Rochelle, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7394-1993
Anders GalatiusDepartment of Bioscience - Marine Mammal Research, Åarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1237-2066
Anita GillesInstitute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research (ITAW), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Büsum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7234-8645
Jérôme SpitzObservatoire Pelagis UMS3462 CNRS-La Rochelle Université, La Rochelle Université, La Rochelle, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2729-2413

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many conservation instruments rely on detecting and estimating a population decline in a target species to take action. Trend estimation is difficult because of small sample size and relatively large uncertainty in abundance/density estimates of many wild populations of animals. Focusing on cetaceans, we performed a prospective analysis to estimate power, type-I, sign (type-S) and magnitude (type-M) error rates of detecting a decline in short time-series of abundance estimates with different signal-to-noise ratio. We contrasted results from both unregularized (classical) and regularized approaches. The latter allows to incorporate prior information when estimating a trend. Power to detect a statistically significant estimates was in general lower than 80%, except for large declines. The unregularized approach (status quo) had inflated type-I error rates and gave biased (either over- or under-) estimates of a trend. The regularized approach with a weakly-informative prior offered the best trade-off in terms of bias, statistical power, type-I, type-S and type-M error rates and confidence interval coverage. To facilitate timely conservation decisions, we recommend to use the regularized approach with a weakly-informative prior in the detection and estimation of trend with short and noisy time-series of abundance estimates.

Indexed as

CetaceanConservationMarinePower analysisRegularizationTrend detectionWeakly-informative prior

Identifiers

PMID32844053
PMCPMC7416721

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.