ArticlePrimates; journal of primatology2003
Bone mineral density in chimpanzees, humans, and Japanese macaques.
Article in Primates; journal of primatology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Habitual use of the primate forelimb is reflected in the material properties of subchondral bone in the distal radius.Journal of anatomy · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We performed a comparative study of bone mechanical properties in the radii of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), humans (Homo sapiens), and Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) using peripheral quantitative computed tomography. We investigated: (1)cortical bone area relative to the total periosteal area (PrA); (2) trabecular bone area relative to PrA; (3) cortical bone density; and (4) trabecular bone density. The cortical bone area index for chimpanzees was almost the same as that of Japanese macaques, whereas the equivalent value in humans was about the two-fifths that of the others. Values for the other three properties were constant among these three catarrhine species. Chimpanzees do not particularly resemble humans, but are more similar to digitigrade macaques in terms of bone properties. The constant trabecular bone area index and trabecular density value in these species may suggest that a certain amount of trabecular bone (20-30% of total bone area at the distal 4% level of the forearm) is necessary to achieve normal bone turnover. The physiological metabolism of bone, including cortical bone density, might be conserved in these catarrhines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.