ArticlePeerJ2019
Descriptive anatomy of the largest known specimen of
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Craniodental ecomorphology of the large Jurassic ichthyosaurian Temnodontosaurus.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Swiss ichthyosaurs: a review.Swiss journal of palaeontology · 2024Article
- Article
- The anatomy of the palate in Early TriassicPeerJ · 2021Article
- A rostral neurovascular system in the mosasaur Taniwhasaurus antarcticus.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2020Article
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
Ichthyosaur fossils are abundant in Lower Jurassic sediments with nine genera found in the UK. In this paper, we describe the partial skeleton of a large ichthyosaur from the Lower Jurassic (lower Sinemurian) of Warwickshire, England, which was conserved and rearticulated to form the centrepiece of a new permanent gallery at the Thinktank, Birmingham Science Museum in 2015. The unusual three-dimensional preservation of the specimen permitted computed tomography (CT) scanning of individual braincase elements as well as the entire reassembled skull. This represents one of the first times that medical imaging and three-dimensional reconstruction methods have been applied to a large skull of a marine reptile. Data from these scans provide new anatomical information, such as the presence of branching vascular canals within the premaxilla and dentary, and an undescribed dorsal (quadrate) wing of the pterygoid hidden within matrix. Scanning also revealed areas of the skull that had been modelled in wood, clay and other materials after the specimen's initial discovery, highlighting the utility of applying advanced imaging techniques to historical specimens. Additionally, the CT data served as the basis for a new three-dimensional reconstruction of the skull, in which minor damage was repaired and the preserved bones digitally rearticulated. Thus, for the first time a digital reconstruction of the skull and mandible of a large marine reptile skull is available. Museum records show the specimen was originally identified as an example of
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.