ArticlePeerJ2021
A three-dimensional approach to visualize pairwise morphological variation and its application to fragmentary palaeontological specimens.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Latest Cretaceous megaraptorid theropod dinosaur sheds light on megaraptoran evolution and palaeobiology.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Article
- The dichotomy of human decision-making: An experimental assessment of stone tool efficiency.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classifying isolated vertebrate bones to a high level of taxonomic precision can be difficult. Many of Australia's Cretaceous terrestrial vertebrate fossil-bearing deposits, for example, produce large numbers of isolated bones and very few associated or articulated skeletons. Identifying these often fragmentary remains beyond high-level taxonomic ranks, such as Ornithopoda or Theropoda, is difficult and those classified to lower taxonomic levels are often debated. The ever-increasing accessibility to 3D-based comparative techniques has allowed palaeontologists to undertake a variety of shape analyses, such as geometric morphometrics, that although powerful and often ideal, require the recognition of diagnostic landmarks and the generation of sufficiently large data sets to detect clusters and accurately describe major components of morphological variation. As a result, such approaches are often outside the scope of basic palaeontological research that aims to simply identify fragmentary specimens. Herein we present a workflow in which pairwise comparisons between fragmentary fossils and better known exemplars are digitally achieved through three-dimensional mapping of their surface profiles and the iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm. To showcase this methodology, we compared a fragmentary theropod ungual (NMV P186153) from Victoria, Australia, identified as a neovenatorid, with the manual unguals of the megaraptoran
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.