Dataset Information

Sensitivity of migratory connectivity estimates to spatial sampling design.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The use of statistical methods to quantify the strength of migratory connectivity is commonplace. However, little attention has been given to their sensitivity to spatial sampling designs and scales of inference.

Methods

We examine sources of bias and imprecision in the most widely used methodology, Mantel correlations, under a range of plausible sampling regimes using simulated migratory populations.

Results

As Mantel correlations depend fundamentally on the spatial scale and configuration of sampling, unbiased inferences about population-scale connectivity can only be made under certain sampling regimes. Within a contiguous population, samples drawn from smaller spatial subsets of the range generate lower connectivity metrics than samples drawn from the range as a whole, even when the underlying migratory ecology of the population is constant across the population. Random sampling of individuals from contiguous subsets of species ranges can therefore underestimate population-scale connectivity. Where multiple discrete sampling sites are used, by contrast, overestimation of connectivity can arise due to samples being biased towards larger between-individual pairwise distances in the seasonal range where sampling occurs (typically breeding). Severity of all biases was greater for populations with lower levels of true connectivity. When plausible sampling regimes were applied to realistic simulated populations, accuracy of connectivity measures was maximised by increasing the number of discrete sampling sites and ensuring an even spread of sites across the full range.

Conclusions

These results suggest strong potential for bias and imprecision when making quantitative inferences about migratory connectivity using Mantel statistics. Researchers wishing to apply these methods should limit inference to the spatial extent of their sampling, maximise their number of sampling sites, and avoid drawing strong conclusions based on small sample sizes.

SUBMITTER: Vickers SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019184 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A dosimetric margin (DM) is the margin in a specified direction between a structure and a specified isodose surface, corresponding to a prescription or tolerance dose. The dosimetric margin distribution (DMD) is the distribution of DMs over all directions. Given a geometric uncertainty model, representing inter- or intrafraction setup uncertainties or internal organ motion, the DMD can be used to calculate coverage Q, which is the probability that a realized target or organ-at-risk (OAR) dose metric D, exceeds the corresponding prescription or tolerance dose. Postplanning coverage evaluation quantifies the percentage of uncertainties for which target and OAR structures meet their intended dose constraints. The goal of the present work is to evaluate coverage probabilities for 28 prostate treatment plans to determine DMD sampling parameters that ensure adequate accuracy for postplanning coverage estimates.Normally distributed interfraction setup uncertainties were applied to 28 plans for localized prostate cancer, with prescribed dose of 79.2 Gy and 10 mm clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-to-PTV) margins. Using angular or isotropic sampling techniques, dosimetric margins were determined for the CTV, bladder and rectum, assuming shift invariance of the dose distribution. For angular sampling, DMDs were sampled at fixed angular intervals w (e.g., w = 1 degree, 2 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, 20 degrees). Isotropic samples were uniformly distributed on the unit sphere resulting in variable angular increments, but were calculated for the same number of sampling directions as angular DMDs, and accordingly characterized by the effective angular increment omega eff. In each direction, the DM was calculated by moving the structure in radial steps of size delta (=0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1 mm) until the specified isodose was crossed. Coverage estimation accuracy deltaQ was quantified as a function of the sampling parameters omega or omega eff and delta.The accuracy of coverage estimates depends on angular and radial DMD sampling parameters omega or omega eff and delta, as well as the employed sampling technique. Target deltaQ/ < l% and OAR /deltaQ/ < 3% can be achieved with sampling parameters omega or omega eef = 20 degrees, delta =1 mm. Better accuracy (target /deltaQ < 0.5% and OAR /deltaQ < approximately 1%) can be achieved with omega or omega eff = 10 degrees, delta = 0.5 mm. As the number of sampling points decreases, the isotropic sampling method maintains better accuracy than fixed angular sampling.Coverage estimates for post-planning evaluation are essential since coverage values of targets and OARs often differ from the values implied by the static margin-based plans. Finer sampling of the DMD enables more accurate assessment of the effect of geometric uncertainties on coverage estimates prior to treatment. DMD sampling with omega or omega eff = 10 degrees and delta = 0.5 mm should be adequate for planning purposes.