ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Underwater photogrammetry for close-range 3D imaging of dry-sensitive objects: The case study of cephalopod beaks.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional models from limited data: A parametric and multimodal approach to anatomy and 3D kinematics of feeding in basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus).Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Cephalopod Beaks: A 3D Modeling Workflow Combining Prism-Assisted Photogrammetry and Micro-CT Validation.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- The oldest sepioid cephalopod from the Cretaceous discovered by Digital fossil-mining with zero-shot learning AI.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Article
- The significance of cephalopod beaks as a research tool: An update.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Review
- Underwater photogrammetry for close-range 3D imaging of dry-sensitive objects: The case study of cephalopod beaks.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technical advances in 3D imaging have contributed to quantifying and understanding biological variability and complexity. However, small, dry-sensitive objects are not easy to reconstruct using common and easily available techniques such as photogrammetry, surface scanning, or micro-CT scanning. Here, we use cephalopod beaks as an example as their size, thickness, transparency, and dry-sensitive nature make them particularly challenging. We developed a new, underwater, photogrammetry protocol in order to add these types of biological structures to the panel of photogrammetric possibilities.We used a camera with a macrophotography mode in a waterproof housing fixed in a tank with clear water. The beak was painted and fixed on a colored rotating support. Three angles of view, two acquisitions, and around 300 pictures per specimen were taken in order to reconstruct a full 3D model. These models were compared with others obtained with micro-CT scanning to verify their accuracy.The models can be obtained quickly and cheaply compared with micro-CT scanning and have sufficient precision for quantitative interspecific morphological analyses. Our work shows that underwater photogrammetry is a fast, noninvasive, efficient, and accurate way to reconstruct 3D models of dry-sensitive objects while conserving their shape. While the reconstruction of the shape is accurate, some internal parts cannot be reconstructed with photogrammetry as they are not visible. In contrast, these structures are visible using reconstructions based on micro-CT scanning. The mean difference between both methods is very small (10
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.