Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38844515›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Inferring fruit infestation prevalence from a combination of pre-harvest monitoring and consignment sampling data.

Peter Caley, Daniel W Gladish, Lloyd Kingham, Rieks D van Klinken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Peter CaleyCSIRO Data61, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. peter.caley@csiro.au.
Daniel W GladishCSIRO Data61 GPO, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
Lloyd KinghamNSW Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 21, Orange, NSW, 2800, Australia.
Rieks D van KlinkenCSIRO Health & Biosecurity, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International trade in horticultural produce happens under phytosanitary inspection and production protocols. Fruit inspection typically involves the sampling and inspection of either 600-pieces or 2% of packed product within a single consignment destined for export, with the purpose of certification (typically with 95% confidence) that the true infestation level within the consignment in question doesn't exceed a pre-specified design prevalence. Sampling of multiple consignments from multiple production blocks in conjunction with pre-harvest monitoring for pests can be used to provide additional inference on the prevalence of infested fruit within an overall production system subject to similar protocols. Here we develop a hierarchical Bayesian model that combines in-field monitoring data with consignment sample inspection data to infer the prevalence of infested fruit in a production system. The results illustrate how infestation prevalence is influenced by the number of consignments inspected, the detection efficacy of consignment sampling, and in-field monitoring effort and sensitivity. Uncertainty in inspection performance, monitoring methods, and exposure of fruit to pests is accommodated using statistical priors within a Bayesian modelling framework. We demonstrate that pre-harvest surveillance with a sufficient density of traps and moderate detection sensitivity can provide 95% belief that the prevalence of infestation is below

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremFruitAnimalsPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID38844515
PMCPMC11156985

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.