Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31628142›Full record

ArticleBiology open2019

Computational analysis of size, shape and structure of insect wings.

Mary K Salcedo, Jordan Hoffmann, Seth Donoughe, L Mahadevan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Mechanics of Drosophila wing deployment.Nature communications · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Towards global insect biomonitoring with frugal methods.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Nonuniform structural properties of wings confer sensing advantages.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors.

Mary K SalcedoDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Jordan HoffmannSchool of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Seth DonougheDepartment of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
L MahadevanDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Lmahadev@g.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5114-0519

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The size, shape and structure of insect wings are intimately linked to their ability to fly. However, there are few systematic studies of the variability of the natural patterns in wing morphology across insects. We have assembled a dataset of 789 insect wings with representatives from 25 families and performed a comprehensive computational analysis of their morphology using topological and geometric notions in terms of (i) wing size and contour shape, (ii) vein topology, and (iii) shape and distribution of wing membrane domains. These morphospaces are complementary to existing methods for quantitatively characterizing wing morphology and are likely to be useful for investigating wing function and evolution. This Methods and Techniques paper is accompanied by a set of computational tools for open use.This article has an associated First Person interview with the first author of the paper.

Indexed as

Image quantificationPhenotypingWing morphology

Identifiers

PMID31628142
PMCPMC6826288

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.