Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36206401›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2023

Anatomically grounded estimation of hindlimb muscle sizes in Archosauria.

Andrew R Cuff, Ashleigh L A Wiseman, Peter J Bishop, Krijn B Michel, Raphäelle Gaignet, John R Hutchinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Andrew R CuffStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9509-4297
Ashleigh L A WisemanStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9575-4387
Peter J BishopStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2702-0557
Krijn B MichelStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.
Raphäelle GaignetStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.
John R HutchinsonStructure and Motion Laboratory, Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6767-7038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vertebrates, active movement is driven by muscle forces acting on bones, either directly or through tendinous insertions. There has been much debate over how muscle size and force are reflected by the muscular attachment areas (AAs). Here we investigate the relationship between the physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA), a proxy for the force production of the muscle, and the AA of hindlimb muscles in Nile crocodiles and five bird species. The limbs were held in a fixed position whilst blunt dissection was carried out to isolate the individual muscles. AAs were digitised using a point digitiser, before the muscle was removed from the bone. Muscles were then further dissected and fibre architecture was measured, and PCSA calculated. The raw measures, as well as the ratio of PCSA to AA, were studied and compared for intra-observer error as well as intra- and interspecies differences. We found large variations in the ratio between AAs and PCSA both within and across species, but muscle fascicle lengths are conserved within individual species, whether this was Nile crocodiles or tinamou. Whilst a discriminant analysis was able to separate crocodylian and avian muscle data, the ratios for AA to cross-sectional area for all species and most muscles can be represented by a single equation. The remaining muscles have specific equations to represent their scaling, but equations often have a relatively high success at predicting the ratio of muscle AA to PCSA. We then digitised the muscle AAs of Coelophysis bauri, a dinosaur, to estimate the PCSAs and therefore maximal isometric muscle forces. The results are somewhat consistent with other methods for estimating force production, and suggest that, at least for some archosaurian muscles, that it is possible to use muscle AA to estimate muscle sizes. This method is complementary to other methods such as digital volumetric modelling.

Indexed as

Lower ExtremityMuscle, SkeletalAnimalsBone and BonesHindlimbVertebratescomparative anatomymuscle forcemyologypalaeontologyphysiological cross-sectional area

Identifiers

PMID36206401
PMCPMC9877486

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.