↓ Skip to main content

Re-Evaluating Neonatal-Age Models for Ungulates: Does Model Choice Affect Survival Estimates?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Re-Evaluating Neonatal-Age Models for Ungulates: Does Model Choice Affect Survival Estimates?
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0108797
Pubmed ID
Authors

Troy W. Grovenburg, Kevin L. Monteith, Christopher N. Jacques, Robert W. Klaver, Christopher S. DePerno, Todd J. Brinkman, Kyle B. Monteith, Sophie L. Gilbert, Joshua B. Smith, Vernon C. Bleich, Christopher C. Swanson, Jonathan A. Jenks

Abstract

New-hoof growth is regarded as the most reliable metric for predicting age of newborn ungulates, but variation in estimated age among hoof-growth equations that have been developed may affect estimates of survival in staggered-entry models. We used known-age newborns to evaluate variation in age estimates among existing hoof-growth equations and to determine the consequences of that variation on survival estimates. During 2001-2009, we captured and radiocollared 174 newborn (≤24-hrs old) ungulates: 76 white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Minnesota and South Dakota, 61 mule deer (O. hemionus) in California, and 37 pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) in South Dakota. Estimated age of known-age newborns differed among hoof-growth models and varied by >15 days for white-tailed deer, >20 days for mule deer, and >10 days for pronghorn. Accuracy (i.e., the proportion of neonates assigned to the correct age) in aging newborns using published equations ranged from 0.0% to 39.4% in white-tailed deer, 0.0% to 3.3% in mule deer, and was 0.0% for pronghorns. Results of survival modeling indicated that variability in estimates of age-at-capture affected short-term estimates of survival (i.e., 30 days) for white-tailed deer and mule deer, and survival estimates over a longer time frame (i.e., 120 days) for mule deer. Conversely, survival estimates for pronghorn were not affected by estimates of age. Our analyses indicate that modeling survival in daily intervals is too fine a temporal scale when age-at-capture is unknown given the potential inaccuracies among equations used to estimate age of neonates. Instead, weekly survival intervals are more appropriate because most models accurately predicted ages within 1 week of the known age. Variation among results of neonatal-age models on short- and long-term estimates of survival for known-age young emphasizes the importance of selecting an appropriate hoof-growth equation and appropriately defining intervals (i.e., weekly versus daily) for estimating survival.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 41%
Environmental Science 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2014.
All research outputs
#20,238,443
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,336
of 194,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,157
of 252,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,432
of 5,287 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,287 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.