Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34909284›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Whole-limb scaling of muscle mass and force-generating capacity in amniotes.

Peter J Bishop, Mark A Wright, Stephanie E Pierce

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 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
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. When the lung invades: a review of avian postcranial skeletal pneumaticity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A theory of physiological similarity in muscle-driven motion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter J BishopMuseum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Mark A WrightMuseum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Stephanie E PierceMuseum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology,Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Harvard University · USQueensland Museum · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skeletal muscle mass, architecture and force-generating capacity are well known to scale with body size in animals, both throughout ontogeny and across species. Investigations of limb muscle scaling in terrestrial amniotes typically focus on individual muscles within select clades, but here this question was examined at the level of the whole limb across amniotes generally. In particular, the present study explored how muscle mass, force-generating capacity (measured by physiological cross-sectional area) and internal architecture (fascicle length) scales in the fore- and hindlimbs of extant mammals, non-avian saurians ('reptiles') and bipeds (birds and humans). Sixty species spanning almost five orders of magnitude in body mass were investigated, comprising previously published architectural data and new data obtained

Indexed as

AllometryAmniotesBiomechanicsMuscle architectureScaling

Identifiers

PMID34909284
PMCPMC8638577
OpenAlexW3215126398

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.