Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37351494›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2023

Alan R Vincelette, Elise Renders, Kathleen M Scott, Peter L Falkingham, Christine M Janis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Rewilded horses in European nature conservation - a genetics, ethics, and welfare perspective.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Royal Society open science · 2023
    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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Alan R VinceletteDepartment of Pathology, St. John's Seminary, Camarillo, 93012, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3164-7571
Elise RendersDepartment of Functional Morphology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University (Ret.), Utrecht, 3584 CM, The Netherlands.
Kathleen M ScottDepartment of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 08854, NJ, USA.
Peter L FalkinghamSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK.
Christine M JanisBristol Palaeobiology Group, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1RJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2308-0520
Brown University · USLiverpool John Moores University · GBRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USSt. John's Seminary · USUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The traditional story of the evolution of the horse (family Equidae) has been in large part about the evolution of their feet. How did modern horses come to have a single toe (digit III), with the hoof bearing a characteristic V-shaped keratinous frog on the sole, and what happened to the other digits? While it has long been known that the proximal portions of digits II and IV are retained as the splint bones, a recent hypothesis suggested that the distal portion of these digits have also been retained as part of the frog, drawing upon the famous Laetoli footprints of the tridactyl (three-toed) equid

Indexed as

digit reductionEquusfroghoofhorselimb evolution

Identifiers

PMID37351494
PMCPMC10282582
OpenAlexW4381512425

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.