ArticleJournal of anatomy2020
Can skeletal surface area predict in vivo foot surface area?
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The evolutionary biomechanics of locomotor function in giant land animals.The Journal of experimental biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surface area of feet in contact with the ground is a key morphological feature that influences animal locomotion. Underfoot pressures (and consequently stresses experienced by the foot), as well as stability of an animal during locomotion, depend on the size and shape of this area. Here we tested whether the area of a skeletal foot could predict in vivo soft tissue foot surface area. Computed tomography scans of 29 extant tetrapods (covering mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians) were used to produce models of both the soft tissues and the bones of their feet. Soft tissue models were oriented to a horizontal plane, and their outlines projected onto a surface to produce two-dimensional silhouettes. Silhouettes of skeletal models were generated either from bones in CT pose or with all autopodial bones aligned to the horizontal plane. Areas of these projections were calculated using alpha shapes (mathematical tight-fitting outline). Underfoot area of soft tissue was approximately 1.67 times that of skeletal tissue area (~ 2 times for manus, ~ 1.6 times for pes, if analysed separately). This relationship between skeletal foot area and soft tissue area, while variable in some of our study taxa, could provide information about the size of the organisms responsible for fossil trackways, suggest what size of tracks might be expected from potential trackmakers known only from skeletal remains, and aid in soft tissue reconstruction of skeletal remains for biomechanical modelling.
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.