ArticlePeerJ2022
The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Southern hemisphere ceratosaurs evolved feeding mechanics paralleling those of Northern hemisphere tyrannosaurids.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Sharper, straighter, stiffer, stronger: sexually dimorphic bill shape enhances male stabbing performance in the green hermit hummingbird (Phaethornis guy).The Journal of experimental biology · 2025Article
- Morphological evolution and functional consequences of giantism in tyrannosauroid dinosaurs.iScience · 2024Article
- Cranial functional specialisation for strength precedes morphological evolution in Oviraptorosauria.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Three-Dimensional Immersion Scanning Technique: A Scalable Low-Cost Solution for 3D Scanning Using Water-Based Fluid.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Many-to-one function of cat-like mandibles highlights a continuum of sabre-tooth adaptations.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Finite element analysis (FEA) is a commonly used application in biomechanical studies of both extant and fossil taxa to assess stress and strain in solid structures such as bone. FEA can be performed on 3D structures that are generated using various methods, including computed tomography (CT) scans and surface scans. While previous palaeobiological studies have used both CT scanned models and surface scanned models, little research has evaluated to what degree FE results may vary when CT scans and surface scans of the same object are compared. Surface scans do not preserve the internal geometries of 3D structures, which are typically preserved in CT scans. Here, we created 3D models from CT scans and surface scans of the same specimens (crania and mandibles of a Nile crocodile, a green sea turtle, and a monitor lizard) and performed FEA under identical loading parameters. It was found that once surface scanned models are solidified, they output stress and strain distributions and model deformations comparable to their CT scanned counterparts, though differing by notable stress and strain magnitudes in some cases, depending on morphology of the specimen and the degree of reconstruction applied. Despite similarities in overall mechanical behaviour, surface scanned models can differ in exterior shape compared to CT scanned models due to inaccuracies that can occur during scanning and reconstruction, resulting in local differences in stress distribution. Solid-fill surface scanned models generally output lower stresses compared to CT scanned models due to their compact interiors, which must be accounted for in studies that use both types of scans.
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.