Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37035037›Full record

ReviewIntegrative organismal biology (Oxford, England)2023

A New Era of Morphological Investigations: Reviewing Methods for Comparative Anatomical Studies.

K L Ford, J S Albert, A P Summers, B P Hedrick, E R Schachner, A S Jones, K Evans, P Chakrabarty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Physiology is a hidden dimension of diversity in the radiation of woodland salamanders.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Cranial modularity drives phenotypic diversification and adaptive radiation of Antarctic icefishes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

K L FordDepartment of Biological Sciences, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4413-2633
J S AlbertDepartment of Biology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Louisiana, USA.
A P SummersDepartment of Biology, Friday Harbor Labs, University of Washington, Washington, USA.
B P HedrickDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
E R SchachnerDepartment of Cell Biology & Anatomy, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Louisiana, USA.
A S JonesMuseum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Louisiana, USA.
K EvansBioSciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA.
P ChakrabartyMuseum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Louisiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increased use of imaging technology in biological research has drastically altered morphological studies in recent decades and allowed for the preservation of important collection specimens alongside detailed visualization of bony and soft-tissue structures. Despite the benefits associated with these newer imaging techniques, there remains a need for more "traditional" methods of morphological examination in many comparative studies. In this paper, we describe the costs and benefits of the various methods of visualizing, examining, and comparing morphological structures. There are significant differences not only in the costs associated with these different methods (monetary, time, equipment, and software), but also in the degree to which specimens are destroyed. We argue not for any one particular method over another in morphological studies, but instead suggest a combination of methods is useful not only for breadth of visualization, but also for the financial and time constraints often imposed on early-career research scientists.

Identifiers

PMID37035037
PMCPMC10081917

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.