ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Nocturnal at Noon? Addressing False Positives in Activity Pattern Data.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
False positives in wildlife detection datasets can substantially bias ecological inference, including diel activity pattern estimation from time-stamped detections. This problem is intensifying with widespread use of automated classifiers for camera-trap images and bioacoustic recordings, where full human verification is rarely feasible. Here, we present a Bayesian framework that provides a false-positive-aware alternative to commonly used pooled kernel density estimation workflows for diel activity. The model uses a subset of human-verified records to estimate (i) θ, the dataset-average true-positive rate among apparent detections, and (ii) time-of-day distributions describing the relative frequency of true detections and false positives across the 24-h cycle. We implement two error structures: a parsimonious uniform false-positive model and a flexible "skewed" model that learns a false-positive diel distribution to accommodate temporally clustered misclassifications. Simulations across multiple activity shapes, false-positive rates, and verification intensities showed that the approach can recover true diel patterns with limited verification effort and reduces bias relative to uncorrected estimates. We illustrate the method on an empirical dataset, where accounting for false positives yielded meaningfully different activity inferences than standard pooled approaches. Finally, we discuss extensions that allow θ to vary with covariates or random effects (e.g., site/night) and highlight opportunities to integrate diel activity correction with modern false-positive occupancy and abundance models.
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.