ArticleNature2018
Author Correction: New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens.
Article in Nature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A reassessment of the "hard-steps" model for the evolution of intelligent life.Science advances · 2025Review
- Refinement of Poultry Standing in Japan Based on Recent Anthropo-ornithological Perspectives.The journal of poultry science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the originally published version of this Letter, the x axis in Fig. 3a should have been: 'PC1: 26%' rather than 'PC1: 46%', and the y axis should have been: 'PC2: 16%' rather than 'PC2: 29%'. We also noticed an error in the numbering of the fossils from Qafzeh: Qafzeh 27 should be removed, and Qafzeh 26 is actually Qafzeh 25, following Tillier (2014)1 and Schuh et al. (2017)2 and personal communication with B. Vandermeersch and M. D. Garralda. The correct enumeration of Qafzeh samples in the 'Mandibular metric data' section of the Methods is therefore: 'Qafzeh (9, 25)' rather than 'Qafzeh (9, 26, 27)'. Owing to the removal of Qafzeh 27, the convex hull of early modern humans changes slightly in Extended Data Fig. 1c. The sample sizes in Extended Data Fig. 1c should have read: Middle Pleistocene archaic Homo n = 19 (instead of 11), Neanderthals n = 40 (instead of 41), early modern humans n = 12 (instead of 7), and recent modern humans n = 46 (instead of 48). In Extended Data Table 2, the mean and standard deviation of corpus height and breadth at mental foramen for early modern humans should have been: x̅ = 33.15, σ = 3.26 for height (rather than x̅ = 34.23, σ = 4.57); and x̅ = 16.25, σ = 1.28 for breadth (rather than x̅ = 16.04, σ = 1.75). Accordingly, n = 12 (rather than n = 13) for both breadth and height. These errors have been corrected in the Letter online (the original Extended Data Fig. 1 is shown in Supplementary Information to this Amendment). These changes do not alter any inferences drawn from the data.
Identifiers
29899442What 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.