ArticlePloS one2021
Modernising fish and shark growth curves with Bayesian length-at-age models.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Age and growth of the endemic groovebelly stingray (Dasyatis hypostigma), a heavily exploited batoid in the Brazilian Meridional Margin (21-34° S).Journal of fish biology · 2026Article
- Sharing approaches in predictive genomics across animals, plants and humans.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Article
- Contrasting Life History Characteristics Between Riverine and Lacustrine Anadromous Arctic Char (Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Age, growth, and intrinsic sensitivity of Endangered Spinetail Devil Ray (Marine biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Downsized: gray whales using an alternative foraging ground have smaller morphology.Biology letters · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growth modelling is a fundamental component of fisheries assessments but is often hindered by poor quality data from biased sampling. Several methods have attempted to account for sample bias in growth analyses. However, in many cases this bias is not overcome, especially when large individuals are under-sampled. In growth models, two key parameters have a direct biological interpretation: L0, which should correspond to length-at-birth and L∞, which should approximate the average length of full-grown individuals. Here, we present an approach of fitting Bayesian growth models using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), with informative priors on these parameters to improve the biological plausibility of growth estimates. A generalised framework is provided in an R package 'BayesGrowth', which removes the hurdle of programming an MCMC model for new users. Four case studies representing different sampling scenarios as well as three simulations with different selectivity functions were used to compare this Bayesian framework to standard frequentist growth models. The Bayesian models either outperformed or matched the results of frequentist growth models in all examples, demonstrating the broad benefits offered by this approach. This study highlights the impact that Bayesian models could provide in age and growth studies if applied more routinely rather than being limited to only complex or sophisticated applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.