ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Unlocking plant health survey data: An approach to quantify the sensitivity and specificity of visual inspections.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Invasive plant pests and pathogens cause substantial environmental and economic damage. Visual inspection remains a central tenet of plant health surveys, but its sensitivity (probability of correctly identifying the presence of a pest) and specificity (probability of correctly identifying the absence of a pest) are not routinely quantified. As knowing sensitivity and specificity of visual inspection is critical for effective contingency planning and outbreak management, we address this deficiency using empirical data and statistical analyses. Twenty-three citizen scientist surveyors assessed up to 175 labelled oak trees for three symptoms of acute oak decline. The same trees were also assessed by an expert who has monitored these individual trees annually for over a decade. The sensitivity and specificity of surveyors was calculated using the expert data as the 'gold-standard' (i.e., assuming perfect sensitivity and specificity). The utility of an approach using Bayesian modelling to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of visual inspection in the absence of a rarely available 'gold-standard' dataset was then examined with simulated plant health survey datasets. There was large variation in sensitivity and specificity between surveyors and between different symptoms, although the sensitivity of detecting a symptom was positively related to the frequency of the symptom on a tree. By leveraging surveyor observations of two symptoms from a minimum of 80 trees on two sites, with reliable prior knowledge of sites with a higher (~0.6) and lower (~0.3) true disease prevalence we show that sensitivity and specificity can be estimated without 'gold-standard' data using Bayesian modelling. We highlight that sensitivity and specificity will depend on the symptoms of a pest or disease, the individual surveyor, and the survey protocol. This has consequences for how surveys are designed to detect and monitor outbreaks, as well as the interpretation of survey data that is used to inform outbreak management.
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.