ArticlePloS one2025
Estimation of free-roaming dog populations using Google Street View: A methodological study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spatial prediction of dog population distribution in Kenya.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Controlling and eliminating zoonotic pathogens such as rabies virus, Echinococcus granulosus, and Leishmania spp. require quantitative knowledge of dog populations. Dog population estimates are fundamental for planning, implementing, and evaluating public health programs. However, dog population estimation is time-consuming, requires many field personnel, may be inaccurate and unreliable, and is not without danger. Our objective was to evaluate a remote method for estimating the population of free-roaming dogs using Google Street View (GSV). Adopting a citizen science approach, participants from Arequipa and other regions in Peru were recruited using social media and trained to use GSV to identify and count free-roaming dogs in 20 urban and 6 periurban communities. We used correlation metrics and negative binomial models to compare the counts of dogs identified in the GSV imagery with accurate counts of free-roaming owned dogs estimated via door-to-door (D2D) survey conducted in 2016. Citizen scientists detected 862 dogs using GSV. After adjusting by the proportion of streets that were scanned with GSV we estimated 1,022 free-roaming dogs, while the 2016 D2D survey estimated 1,536 owned free-roaming dogs across those 26 communities. We detected a strong positive correlation between the number of dogs detected by the two methods in the urban communities (r = 0.85; p < 0.001) and a weak correlation in periurban areas (r = 0.36; p = 0.478). Our multivariable model indicated that for each additional free-roaming dog estimated using GSV, the expected number of owned free-roaming dogs decreased by 2% in urban areas (p < 0.001) and increased by 2% in peri-urban areas (p = 0.004). The type of community (urban vs periurban) had an effect on the predictions, and fitting the models in periurban communities was difficult because of the sparsity of high-resolution GSV images. Using GSV imagery for estimating dog populations is a promising tool, especially in urban areas. Citizen scientists can help to generate information for disease control programs in places with insufficient resources.
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.