Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32117627›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Broad similarities in shoulder muscle architecture and organization across two amniotes: implications for reconstructing non-mammalian synapsids.

Philip Fahn-Lai, Andrew A Biewener, Stephanie E Pierce

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. From fibre to function: are we accurately representing muscle architecture and performance?Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Evolutionary biomechanics: hard tissues and soft evidence?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Validation of an Echidna Forelimb Musculoskeletal Model Using XROMM and diceCT.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philip Fahn-LaiMuseum of Comparative Zoology, Concord Field Station and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2451-4239
Andrew A BiewenerConcord Field Station and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Stephanie E PierceMuseum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Harvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of upright limb posture in mammals may have enabled modifications of the forelimb for diverse locomotor ecologies. A rich fossil record of non-mammalian synapsids holds the key to unraveling the transition from "sprawling" to "erect" limb function in the precursors to mammals, but a detailed understanding of muscle functional anatomy is a necessary prerequisite to reconstructing postural evolution in fossils. Here we characterize the gross morphology and internal architecture of muscles crossing the shoulder joint in two morphologically-conservative extant amniotes that form a phylogenetic and morpho-functional bracket for non-mammalian synapsids: the Argentine black and white tegu

Indexed as

ForelimbLocomotionMammalsMusculoskeletal functionNon-mammalian synapsidPostureShoulder

Identifiers

PMID32117627
PMCPMC7034385
OpenAlexW2972661560

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.