Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34050741›Full record

ReviewIntegrative and comparative biology2021

Perspectives on Individual Animal Identification from Biology and Computer Vision.

Maxime Vidal, Nathan Wolf, Beth Rosenberg, Bradley P Harris, Alexander Mathis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative and comparative biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evaluating enrichment use in group-housed rhesus macaques (Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Maxime VidalSchool of Life Sciences, Brain Mind Institute, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Chemin des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Nathan WolfFisheries, Aquatic Science, and Technology Laboratory, Alaska Pacific University, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA.
Beth RosenbergFisheries, Aquatic Science, and Technology Laboratory, Alaska Pacific University, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA.
Bradley P HarrisFisheries, Aquatic Science, and Technology Laboratory, Alaska Pacific University, 4101 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA.
Alexander MathisSchool of Life Sciences, Brain Mind Institute, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL), Chemin des Mines 9, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3777-2202

Funding

At-Sea Processors Association and the Groundfish Forum
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying individual animals is crucial for many biological investigations. In response to some of the limitations of current identification methods, new automated computer vision approaches have emerged with strong performance. Here, we review current advances of computer vision identification techniques to provide both computer scientists and biologists with an overview of the available tools and discuss their applications. We conclude by offering recommendations for starting an animal identification project, illustrate current limitations, and propose how they might be addressed in the future.

Indexed as

Animal Identification SystemsBiologyComputersAnimals

Identifiers

PMID34050741
PMCPMC8490693

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.