ArticlePloS one2023
Estimating age of mule deer in the field: Can we move beyond broad age categories?
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual Assessment of Rib Cartilage Mineralization in Thoracic Radiographs as an Indicator of Age in Juvenile Dogs of Various Breeds.Veterinary radiology & ultrasound : the official journal of the American College of Veterinary Radiology and the International Veterinary Radiology Association · 2026Article
- Heart rate biologgers reveal individual-specific energy landscapes for mule deer.Movement ecology · 2026Article
- Epizootic Haemorrhagic Disease Virus (EHDV) Infection in Red Deer (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Designing Epigenetic Clocks for Wildlife Research.Molecular ecology resources · 2025Review
- A refined guide for aging muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) based on mandibular examination.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pitfalls and windfalls of detecting demographic declines using population genetics in long-lived species.Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age of individuals is an intrinsic demographic parameter used in the modeling and management of wildlife. Although analysis of cementum annuli from teeth is currently the most accurate method used to age ungulates, the age of live ungulates in the field can be estimated by examining tooth wear and tooth replacement patterns. However, there may be limitations to aging based on tooth wear as the rate of tooth wear likely varies among individuals due to factors such as age, diet, environment, and sex. Our objective was to determine the reliability of estimating age for mule deer based on tooth wear and tooth replacement patterns. We compared ages estimated by tooth wear (collected at time of capture for a statewide monitoring effort) to ages determined from cementum analysis (from teeth collected after mortalities of radio-tracked animals from the monitoring effort). Accuracy was high; ages estimated from tooth wear were within one year of cementum ages >75% of the time when aged by experienced observers. Bias in accuracy for estimates of age was low but slightly biased toward underestimation (i.e., 0.6 years on average)-especially as cementum age increased. Our results indicate that aging mule deer using patterns in tooth wear can be reliable if observers estimating age have experience using this method.
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.