ArticleJournal of vision2024
Determining the efficacy of visual inspections at detecting non-biosecurity-compliant goods.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. 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.
- From detection to action: artificial intelligence in integrated pest and invasive plant management.Advanced biotechnology · 2026Review
- Unlocking plant health survey data: An approach to quantify the sensitivity and specificity of visual inspections.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Examination of imported commodities by trained inspectors searching for pest organisms is a common practice that phytosanitary regulatory agencies use to mitigate biosecurity risks along trade pathways. To investigate the effects of target size and color on the efficacy of these visual assessments, we affixed square decals to polystyrene models of mandarins. Sample units of 100 model fruit containing up to 10 marked models were examined by inspectors. Six sizes in six shades of brown were tested across two prevalence levels. The experiment consisted of five inspection rounds where 11 inspectors examined 77 sample units within an allocated time. The probability that decals were detected increased with mark size and color contrast. Smaller, low-contrast marks were mainly missed. The prevalence rate did not affect the detectability. Through the experiment, the false-positive rate dropped from 6% to 3%, whereas false-negative rates were constant throughout. Large, dark targets were readily found with a mean recall of >90%, whereas small, pale marks had a mean recall of 9%. Increased experience made inspectors more competent at recognizing decals, reducing the false positive rate. However, constant false-negative rates indicate that experience did not prevent inspectors from overlooking targets they could not perceive.
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.