ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Counting Cats: The integration of expert and citizen science data for unbiased inference of population abundance.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Territorially Stratified Modeling for Sustainable Management of Free-Roaming Cat Populations in Spain: A National Approach to Urban and Rural Environmental Planning.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Four Years of Promising Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) in Córdoba, Spain: A Scalable Model for Urban Feline Management.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Integrating Conservation and Community Engagement in Free-Roaming Cat Management: A Case Study from a Natura 2000 Protected Area.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Domestic cat management in the UK: learnings from a global perspective.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Community Science Strategies Reveal Distributional Patterns of Treponeme-Associated Hoof Disease in Washington Elk (Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2023Article
- Human influences shape the first spatially explicit national estimate of urban unowned cat abundance.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Counting Cats: The integration of expert and citizen science data for unbiased inference of population abundance.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
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
Free-roaming animal populations are hard to count, and professional experts are a limited resource. There is vast untapped potential in the data collected by nonprofessional scientists who volunteer their time to population monitoring, but citizen science (CS) raises concerns around data quality and biases. A particular concern in abundance modeling is the presence of false positives that can occur due to misidentification of nontarget species. Here, we introduce Integrated Abundance Models (IAMs) that integrate citizen and expert data to allow robust inference of population abundance meanwhile accounting for biases caused by misidentification. We used simulation experiments to confirm that IAMs successfully remove the inflation of abundance estimates caused by false-positive detections and can provide accurate estimates of both bias and abundance. We illustrate the approach with a case study on unowned domestic cats, which are commonly confused with owned, and infer their abundance by analyzing a combination of CS data and expert data. Our case study finds that relying on CS data alone, either through simple summation or via traditional modeling approaches, can vastly inflate abundance estimates. IAMs provide an adaptable framework, increasing the opportunity for further development of the approach, tailoring to specific systems and robust use of CS data.
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.