Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31293834›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Automatic generation of objective footprint outlines.

Jens N Lallensack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

1 author.

Jens N LallensackSection Paleontology, Institute of Geosciences, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective definition of footprint margins poses a central problem in ichnology. The transition from the footprint to the surrounding sediment is often continuous, and the footprint wall complex, requiring interpolation, approximation, and a priori assumptions about trackmaker anatomy to arrive at feasible interpretations of footprint shapes. The degree of subjectivity of such interpretations is substantial, and outlines produced by separate researchers can differ greatly. As a consequence, statistical shape analysis, regardless if based on linear and angular measurements or on the shape as a whole, are neither fully repeatable nor objective. Here I present an algorithm implemented in the programming environment R that is able to generate continuous footprint outlines based on three-dimensional models-fully automatically, objectively, and repeatable. The approach, which is based on contour lines extracted from the model, traces the outline at the point where the slope of the track wall is steepest. An option for automatic landmark placement is implemented for tridactyl footprints. A case study was carried out on 13 footprints of a single trackway of a theropod trackmaker from the Lower Cretaceous of Münchehagen, Germany. Analysis of the landmark coordinates returned by the script did reproduce statistical results published in an earlier study that was based on human-made interpretative drawings, demonstrating the applicability of the present method for the objective and quantitative shape analysis of tracks. Although faint anatomical details are not always recorded and features not related to the foot anatomy may be included, the generated outlines tend to correspond with human-made interpretative drawings regarding the overall shape. While not suited as a full replacement of interpretative drawings, these generated outlines may be used as an objective basis for such interpretations.

Indexed as

AlgorithmDinosaursDinosaur tracksFossil footprintsGeometric morphometricsLandmark detectionObjective data analysisShape analysis

Identifiers

PMID31293834
PMCPMC6599673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.