Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42172200›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Understanding the value of a forecast using an online game.

Niko Yiannakoulias, Catherine E Slavik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Niko YiannakouliasSchool of Earth, Environment and Society, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3443-1071
Catherine E SlavikLegacy for Airway Health Chair in Health Communication, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Research Scientist, Legacy for Airway Health, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research illustrates the use of an online game to study the value of forecasts under conditions of information uncertainty. The objective of the game is for players to plant crops in field locations in a way that maximizes a payoff, with the option of paying for forecasts that help make better decisions. We found that while players fall short of theoretically perfect play, they generally make decisions that improve their score. Players both under and overpay for forecasts that reduce uncertainty, but exhibit behaviour that shows they roughly understand the expected value of forecasts. The small sample size and demographic homogeneity of the participants limit our ability to generalize these results, but the results suggest that game environments can be useful platforms for augmenting existing primary data collection methods. This is especially poignant today since with the assistance of AI, researchers with little to no programming experience can now design and develop games in ways that would have been prohibitively costly less than a decade ago.

Indexed as

InternetVideo GamesDecision MakingForecastingHumansUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID42172200
PMCPMC13196924

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.