ArticleScientific reports2023
Testing novel facial recognition technology to identify dogs during vaccination campaigns.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of community-based delivery of mass dog vaccination to prevent rabies: A cluster randomized controlled trial.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Trial
- Potential of machine learning for prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases: a scoping review.Communications medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A lack of methods to identify individual animals can be a barrier to zoonoses control. We developed and field-tested facial recognition technology for a mobile phone application to identify dogs, which we used to assess vaccination coverage against rabies in rural Tanzania. Dogs were vaccinated, registered using the application, and microchipped. During subsequent household visits to validate vaccination, dogs were registered using the application and their vaccination status determined by operators using the application to classify dogs as vaccinated (matched) or unvaccinated (unmatched), with microchips validating classifications. From 534 classified dogs (251 vaccinated, 283 unvaccinated), the application specificity was 98.9% and sensitivity 76.2%, with positive and negative predictive values of 98.4% and 82.8% respectively. The facial recognition algorithm correctly matched 249 (99.2%) vaccinated and microchipped dogs (true positives) and failed to match two (0.8%) vaccinated dogs (false negatives). Operators correctly identified 186 (74.1%) vaccinated dogs (true positives), and 280 (98.9%) unvaccinated dogs (true negatives), but incorrectly classified 58 (23.1%) vaccinated dogs as unmatched (false negatives). Reduced application sensitivity resulted from poor quality photos and light-associated color distortion. With development and operator training, this technology has potential to be a useful tool to identify dogs and support research and intervention programs.
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.