Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32996582›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2021

Are endocasts reliable proxies for brains? A 3D quantitative comparison of the extant human brain and endocast.

Jean Dumoncel, Gérard Subsol, Stanley Durrleman, Anne Bertrand, Edwin de Jager, Anna C Oettlé, Zarina Lockhat, Farhana E Suleman, Amélie Beaudet

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. From fossils to mind.Communications biology · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Endocranial ontogeny and evolution in earlyProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Jean DumoncelLaboratoire d'Anthropobiologie Moléculaire et Imagerie de Synthèse, UMR 5288 CNRS, Université Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France.
Gérard SubsolResearch-Team ICAR, Laboratoire d'Informatique, de Robotique et de Microélectronique de Montpellier, CNRS, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Stanley DurrlemanAramis team, INRIA Paris, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 06 UMR S 1127, Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, Paris, France.
Anne BertrandAramis team, INRIA Paris, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 06 UMR S 1127, Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, Paris, France.
Edwin de JagerDepartment of Anatomy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-3199-8566
Anna C OettléDepartment of Anatomy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Zarina LockhatDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Farhana E SulemanDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Amélie BeaudetDepartment of Anatomy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9363-5966
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRUniversity of Pretoria · ZAFundación Juan March · ESSefako Makgatho Health Sciences University · ZAUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endocasts (i.e., replicas of the inner surface of the bony braincase) constitute a critical proxy for qualifying and quantifying variations in brain shape and organization in extinct taxa. In the absence of brain tissues preserved in the fossil record, endocasts provide the only direct evidence of brain evolution. However, debates on whether or not information inferred from the study of endocasts reflects brain shape and organization have polarized discussions in paleoneurology since the earliest descriptions of cerebral imprints in fossil hominin crania. By means of imaging techniques (i.e., MRIs and CT scans) and 3D modelling methods (i.e., surface-based comparisons), we collected consistent morphological (i.e., shape) and structural (i.e., sulci) information on the variation patterns between the brain and the endocast based on a sample of extant human individuals (N = 5) from the 3D clinical image database of the Steve Biko Academic Hospital in Pretoria (South Africa) and the Hôpitaux Universitaires Pitié Salpêtrière in Paris (France). Surfaces of the brain and endocast of the same individual were segmented from the 3D MRIs and CT images, respectively. Sulcal imprints were automatically detected. We performed a deformation-based shape analysis to compare both the shape and the sulcal pattern of the brain and the endocast. We demonstrated that there is close correspondence in terms of morphology and organization between the brain and the corresponding endocast with the exception of the superior region. By comparatively quantifying the shape and organization of the brain and endocast, this work represents an important reference for paleoneurological studies.

Indexed as

BrainFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleNeuroimagingautomatic segmentationbrain shapepaleoneurologysulcisurface-based comparison

Identifiers

PMID32996582
PMCPMC7812123
OpenAlexW3090994656

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.