ArticleEcology and evolution2020
Are geometric morphometric analyses replicable? Evaluating landmark measurement error and its impact on extant and fossil
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Ancestry estimation: Methodological evolution and forensic implications.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Review
- Connecting links with code: AI in morphological evolution.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- "Visiting scientist effect"? Exploring the impact of time-lags in the digitization of 2D landmark data.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2025Article
- Article
- Can morphotaxa be assessed with photographs? Estimating the accuracy of two-dimensional cranial geometric morphometrics for the study of threatened populations of African monkeys.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2022Article
- Ontogenetic and sexual patterns in the cranial system of the brown rat (Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2021Article
- Measurement error using a SeeMaLab structured light 3D scanner against a Microscribe 3D digitizer.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Insect morphometry is reproducible under average investigation standards.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Are geometric morphometric analyses replicable? Evaluating landmark measurement error and its impact on extant and fossilEcology and evolution · 2020Article
- Optimizing digitalization effort in morphometrics.Biology methods & protocols · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geometric morphometric analyses are frequently employed to quantify biological shape and shape variation. Despite the popularity of this technique, quantification of measurement error in geometric morphometric datasets and its impact on statistical results is seldom assessed in the literature. Here, we evaluate error on 2D landmark coordinate configurations of the lower first molar of five North American
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.