Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37607578›Full record

ReviewBiology letters2023

Palaeoecological deductions from osteohistology.

Anusuya Chinsamy

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology letters, 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
19.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The pseudosuchian record in paleohistology: A small review.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anusuya ChinsamyDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, John Day Building, University Avenue, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-9786-5080
University of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Palaeoecological deductions are vital for understanding the evolution and diversification of species within prehistoric environments. This review highlights the multitude of ways in which the microanatomy and microscopic structure of bones enables palaeoecological deductions. The occurrence of growth marks in bones is discussed, and their usefulness in deducing the ontogenetic status and age of individuals is considered, as well as how such marks in bones permit the assessment of the growth dynamics of individuals and species. Here osteohistology is shown to provide insight into the structure of past populations, as well as ecological relationships between individuals. In addition, the response of bones to trauma, disease and moulting is considered. Finally, I explore how osteohistology can give insight into ecomorphological adaptations, such as filter feeding, probe feeding and saltatorial locomotion. Methodological advances in three-dimensional microtomography and synchrotron scanning bodes well for future studies in osteohistology and despite some compromises in terms of tissue identity, circumvents the crucial issue of destructive analyses.

Indexed as

LocomotionMoltingHumansbone histologymicroanatomypalaeoecologypalaeohistology

Identifiers

PMID37607578
PMCPMC10444344
OpenAlexW4386056700

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.