The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS)
Abstract
Summary: In recent years the use of species distribution models by ecologists and conservation managers has increased considerably, along with an awareness of the need to provide accuracy assessment for predictions of such models. The kappa statistic is the most widely used measure for the performance of models generating presence–absence predictions, but several studies have criticized it for being inherently dependent on prevalence, and argued that this dependency introduces statistical artefacts to estimates of predictive accuracy. This criticism has been supported recently by computer simulations showing that kappa responds to the prevalence of the modelled species in a unimodal fashion. In this paper we provide a theoretical explanation for the observed dependence of kappa on prevalence, and introduce into ecology an alternative measure of accuracy, the true skill statistic (TSS), which corrects for this dependence while still keeping all the advantages of kappa. We also compare the responses of kappa and TSS to prevalence using empirical data, by modelling distribution patterns of 128 species of woody plant in Israel. The theoretical analysis shows that kappa responds in a unimodal fashion to variation in prevalence and that the level of prevalence that maximizes kappa depends on the ratio between sensitivity (the proportion of correctly predicted presences) and specificity (the proportion of correctly predicted absences). In contrast, TSS is independent of prevalence. When the two measures of accuracy were compared using empirical data, kappa showed a unimodal response to prevalence, in agreement with the theoretical analysis. TSS showed a decreasing linear response to prevalence, a result we interpret as reflecting true ecological phenomena rather than a statistical artefact. This interpretation is supported by the fact that a similar pattern was found for the area under the ROC curve, a measure known to be independent of prevalence. Synthesis and applications . Our results provide theoretical and empirical evidence that kappa, one of the most widely used measures of model performance in ecology, has serious limitations that make it unsuitable for such applications. The alternative we suggest, TSS, compensates for the shortcomings of kappa while keeping all of its advantages. We therefore recommend the TSS as a simple and intuitive measure for the performance of species distribution models when predictions are expressed as presence–absence maps.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The True-skill Statistic corrects for Kappa’s dependence on prevalence [92].”
From Advancing predictive modeling in archaeology: an evaluation of regression and machine learning methods on the grand staircase-escalante national monument (2020) · cites this paper as [92]
Citations
Cites
Byrt, T., Bishop, J., & Carlin, J. B. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-v · Cited by 2,179 · cited 3×
“the prevalence and bias adjusted kappa, PABAK, proposed by Byrt, Bishop & Carlin 1993; the adjusted kappa coefficient, κ′ described by Hoehler 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 67
- 10.1175/WAF854.1 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00828.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01000.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01136.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.01.030 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03553.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00997.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03764.x · DOI
- 10.1016/0006-3207(95)00102-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00408.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2000.00419.x · DOI
- 10.1175/1520-0434(1990)005<0576:OSMOSI>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1175/1520-0434(2003)018<0953:OECMFS>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00881.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00327-7 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0376892997000088 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00914.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01164.x · DOI
- 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/000456329303000601 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00174-2 · DOI
- 10.1038/28843 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00598.x · DOI
- 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0853:ASAOFA]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00571-4 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2005.03957.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00233.x · DOI
- 10.1175/1520-0434(2000)015<0103:VOQPFF>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00943.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0304-3800(99)00113-1 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00647.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/35012251 · DOI
- 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.404 · DOI
- Nix H.A., 1986, Atlas of Elapid Snakes of Australia, 4
- 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00910.x · DOI
- 10.1577/1548-8659(2002)131<0329:PMOFSD>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2004.00051.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03822.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00322-7 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03740.x · DOI
- Pearson R.G., 2006, Model‐based uncertainty in species’ range prediction, Journal of Biogeography, 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01460.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02206.x · DOI
- 10.1034/j.1600-0587.2003.03545.x · DOI
- Reese G.C., 2005, Factors affecting species distribution predictions. A simulation modelling experiment, Ecological Applications, 15, 556, 10.1890/03-5374 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2004.00118.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00903.x · DOI
- 10.17161/bi.v2i0.9 · DOI
- 10.1175/1520-0434(2002)017<0832:COWCRF>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00185.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01076.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.12.012 · DOI
- 10.2307/2845837 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03823.x · DOI
- 10.1080/136588199241391 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00388-X · DOI
- Thuiller W., 2003, BIOMOD: optimising predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change, Global Change Biology, 9, 1353, 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00666.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1466-822X.2005.00162.x · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.0409902102 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001018.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.12.002 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.01.009 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00359.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01052.x · DOI
- Zweig M.H., 1993, Receiver‐operating characteristics (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine, Clinical Chemistry, 39, 561, 10.1093/clinchem/39.4.561 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases
Allen, T., Murray, K. A., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Morse, S. S., Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Breit, N., Olival, K. J., & Daszak, P. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00923-8 · Cited by 1,124
Metrics for evaluating performance and uncertainty of Bayesian network models
Marcot, B. G. (2012) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.01.013 · Cited by 380
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Enable Discrimination of Heterogeneous Digital Pathology Images
Khosravi, P., Kazemi, E., Imielinski, M., Elemento, O., & Hajirasouliha, I. (2018) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.12.026 · Cited by 334
Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs
Strassburg, B. B. N., Beyer, H. L., Crouzeilles, R., Iribarrem, A., Barros, F., de Siqueira, M. F., Sánchez-Tapia, A., Balmford, A., Sansevero, J. B. B., Brancalion, P. H. S., et al. (2018) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0743-8 · Cited by 326
Why Cohen’s Kappa should be avoided as performance measure in classification
Delgado, R., & Tibau, X.-A. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222916 · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- ALLOUCHE, O., TSOAR, A., & KADMON, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1223-1232
- ISSN
- 0021-8901
- 1365-2664
- Cited by
- 5,172
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review