ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2021
Evolutionary biomechanics: hard tissues and soft evidence?
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Layer-by-layer soft-tissue effects on flexion-extension-dominant passive ex vivo limb joint ROM in quadrupedal mammals: An anatomical contribution to a morphofunctional framework.Journal of anatomy · 2026Article
- Anatomical description of the jaw muscles and theoretical bite force assessment in South American opossums using manual and digital dissection methods.Journal of anatomy · 2026Article
- Integration of postnatal craniofacial development and the effects of diet consistency in rodents.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring the accuracy of palaeobiological modelling procedures in forward-dynamics simulations of maximum-effort vertical jumping.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Estimated and in vivo measurements of bite force demonstrate exceptionally large bite forces in parrots (Psittaciformes).Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- Reconstructing dinosaur locomotion.Biology letters · 2025Review
- Three-dimensional architecture and moment arms of human rotator cuff muscles in vivo: Interindividual, intermuscular, and intramuscular variations.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Decoupling body shape and mass distribution in birds and their dinosaurian ancestors.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Convergent evolution of quadrupedality in ornithischian dinosaurs was achieved through disparate forelimb muscle mechanics.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Anatomically grounded estimation of hindlimb muscle sizes in Archosauria.Journal of anatomy · 2023Article
- A toolbox for the retrodeformation and muscle reconstruction of fossil specimens in Blender.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- From fibre to function: are we accurately representing muscle architecture and performance?Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022Review
- Three-dimensional polygonal muscle modelling and line of action estimation in living and extinct taxa.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- One step further in biomechanical models in palaeontology: a nonlinear finite element analysis review.PeerJ · 2022Review
- Ontogenetic growth in the crania ofPeerJ · 2022Article
- Variability and the form-function framework in evolutionary biomechanics and human locomotion.Evolutionary human sciences · 2022Review
- Back to the bones: do muscle area assessment techniques predict functional evolution across a macroevolutionary radiation?Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
- Evolutionary biomechanics: hard tissues and soft evidence?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biomechanical modelling is a powerful tool for quantifying the evolution of functional performance in extinct animals to understand key anatomical innovations and selective pressures driving major evolutionary radiations. However, the fossil record is composed predominantly of hard parts, forcing palaeontologists to reconstruct soft tissue properties in such models. Rarely are these reconstruction approaches validated on extant animals, despite soft tissue properties being highly determinant of functional performance. The extent to which soft tissue reconstructions and biomechanical models accurately predict quantitative or even qualitative patterns in macroevolutionary studies is therefore unknown. Here, we modelled the masticatory system in extant rodents to objectively test the ability of current muscle reconstruction methods to correctly identify quantitative and qualitative differences between macroevolutionary morphotypes. Baseline models generated using measured soft tissue properties yielded differences in muscle proportions, bite force, and bone stress expected between extant sciuromorph, myomorph, and hystricomorph rodents. However, predictions from models generated using reconstruction methods typically used in fossil studies varied widely from high levels of quantitative accuracy to a failure to correctly capture even relative differences between macroevolutionary morphotypes. Our novel experiment emphasizes that correctly reconstructing even qualitative differences between taxa in a macroevolutionary radiation is challenging using current methods. Future studies of fossil taxa should incorporate systematic assessments of reconstruction error into their hypothesis testing and, moreover, seek to expand primary datasets on muscle properties in extant taxa to better inform soft tissue reconstructions in macroevolutionary studies.
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.