Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30506962›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2019

Are endocasts good proxies for brain size and shape in archosaurs throughout ontogeny?

Akinobu Watanabe, Paul M Gignac, Amy M Balanoff, Todd L Green, Nathan J Kley, Mark A Norell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. From fossils to mind.Communications biology · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Akinobu WatanabeDepartment of Anatomy, New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5057-4772
Paul M GignacDivision of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA.
Amy M BalanoffDivision of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA.
Todd L GreenDepartment of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Nathan J KleyDepartment of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Mark A NorellDivision of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cranial endocasts, or the internal molds of the braincase, are a crucial correlate for investigating the neuroanatomy of extinct vertebrates and tracking brain evolution through deep time. Nevertheless, the validity of such studies pivots on the reliability of endocasts as a proxy for brain morphology. Here, we employ micro-computed tomography imaging, including diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced CT, and a three-dimensional geometric morphometric framework to examine both size and shape differences between brains and endocasts of two exemplar archosaur taxa - the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus). With ontogenetic sampling, we quantitatively evaluate how endocasts differ from brains and whether this deviation changes during development. We find strong size and shape correlations between brains and endocasts, divergent ontogenetic trends in the brain-to-endocast correspondence between alligators and chickens, and a comparable magnitude between brain-endocast shape differences and intraspecific neuroanatomical variation. The results have important implications for paleoneurological studies in archosaurs. Notably, we demonstrate that the pattern of endocranial shape variation closely reflects brain shape variation. Therefore, analyses of endocranial morphology are unlikely to generate spurious conclusions about large-scale trends in brain size and shape. To mitigate any artifacts, however, paleoneurological studies should consider the lower brain-endocast correspondence in the hindbrain relative to the forebrain; higher size and shape correspondences in chickens than alligators throughout postnatal ontogeny; artificially 'pedomorphic' shape of endocasts relative to their corresponding brains; and potential biases in both size and shape data due to the lack of control for ontogenetic stages in endocranial sampling.

Indexed as

Alligators and CrocodilesAnimalsBiological EvolutionBrainChickensImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeuroanatomySkullTomography, X-Ray ComputedX-Ray MicrotomographyAlligatordiffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomographyGallusgeometric morphometricsmicro-computed tomographyneuroanatomy

Identifiers

PMID30506962
PMCPMC6365484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.