ArticleCommunications biology2023
Morphological and evolutionary insights into the keystone element of the human foot's medial longitudinal arch.
Article in Communications biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new distal fibular fragment of Homo floresiensis and the first quantitative comparative analysis of proximal and distal fibular morphology in this species.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- The Virtual Database of the Documented Human Osteological Collection (DHOC) of the Certosa Cemetery of Bologna (Italy, 19th-20th Century).American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Article
- Entheseal variation and locomotor behavior during growth.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Short foot exercises for flatfoot therapy: Status and prospects.Science progressReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors at 15 institutions in 10 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolution of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) is one of the most impactful adaptations in the hominin foot that emerged with bipedalism. When and how it evolved in the human lineage is still unresolved. Complicating the issue, clinical definitions of flatfoot in living Homo sapiens have not reached a consensus. Here we digitally investigate the navicular morphology of H. sapiens (living, archaeological, and fossil), great apes, and fossil hominins and its correlation with the MLA. A distinctive navicular shape characterises living H. sapiens with adult acquired flexible flatfoot, while the congenital flexible flatfoot exhibits a 'normal' navicular shape. All H. sapiens groups differentiate from great apes independently from variations in the MLA, likely because of bipedalism. Most australopith, H. naledi, and H. floresiensis navicular shapes are closer to those of great apes, which is inconsistent with a human-like MLA and instead might suggest a certain degree of arboreality. Navicular shape of OH 8 and fossil H. sapiens falls within the normal living H. sapiens spectrum of variation of the MLA (including congenital flexible flatfoot and individuals with a well-developed MLA). At the same time, H. neanderthalensis seem to be characterised by a different expression of the MLA.
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.