Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12028792›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2002

Modern human origins: progress and prospects.

Chris Stringer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing 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

84 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Evolution, Prehistory and Vitamin D.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Scientific reports · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. eLife · 2017
    Article
  14. The age ofeLife · 2017
    Article
  15. Review
  16. The origin and evolution of Homo sapiens.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Chris StringerDepartment of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK. c.stringer@nhm.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of the mode of origin of modern humans (Homo sapiens) has dominated palaeoanthropological debate over the last decade. This review discusses the main models proposed to explain modern human origins, and examines relevant fossil evidence from Eurasia, Africa and Australasia. Archaeological and genetic data are also discussed, as well as problems with the concept of 'modernity' itself. It is concluded that a recent African origin can be supported for H. sapiens, morphologically, behaviourally and genetically, but that more evidence will be needed, both from Africa and elsewhere, before an absolute African origin for our species and its behavioural characteristics can be established and explained.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionHominidaeAfricaAnimalsAsiaAustraliaEuropeFossilsGenetics, PopulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID12028792
PMCPMC1692961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.