ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2023
Testing different 3D techniques using geometric morphometrics: Implications for cranial fluctuating asymmetry in humans.
Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Visiting scientist effect"? Exploring the impact of time-lags in the digitization of 2D landmark data.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2025Article
- No relationship found between dental fluctuating asymmetry, birthweight, and birth term in two modern North American samples.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2024Article
- Testing different 3D techniques using geometric morphometrics: Implications for cranial fluctuating asymmetry in humans.American journal of biological anthropology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to test the performance of 3D digitizer, CT scanner, and surface scanner in detecting cranial fluctuating asymmetry. Sets of 32 landmarks (6 in the midline and 13 bilateral) were acquired from 14 archeological crania using a 3D digitizer, and from 3D models generated from a CT scanner and surface scanner using Viewbox 4. Levels of shape variation were analyzed in MorphoJ using Procrustes analysis of variance and Principal component analysis. Intra-observer error accounted for 1.7%, 1.8%, and 4.5% of total shape variation for 3D digitizer, CT scanner, and surface scanner respectively. Fluctuating asymmetry accounted for 15%-16% of total shape variation. Variation between techniques accounted for 18% of total shape variation. We found a higher level of missing landmarks in our surface scan data than for both 3D digitizer and CT scanner data, and both 3D model-based techniques sometimes obscured taphonomic damage. All three 3D techniques are appropriate for measuring cranial fluctuating asymmetry. We advise against combining data collected with different techniques.
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.