ArticleJournal of anatomy2024
How to make a digital reconstruction of the human ribcage.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ribcage Morphology in Native South American Populations From Different Altitudes: Insights From a Global Comparative Framework.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2026Article
- Fossil ribcages of Homo sapiens provide new insights into modern human evolution.Communications biology · 2025Article
- How to make a digital reconstruction of the human ribcage.Journal of anatomy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Up to now, there have been no publication standardizing the digital reconstruction of the modern human ribcage from commingled costo-vertebral material. Consequently, we designed a validated protocol based on anatomical features observed in the literature and the CT scanned ribcages of 10 adult European individuals. After quantifying the shape of these ribcages using 3D geometric morphometrics, we split each vertebra and rib within their corresponding (semi)landmarks. Subsequently, individual bones + (semi)landmarks were imported to LhpFusionBox, commingled and 3D reconstructed. To validate the accuracy of the protocol, we first reconstructed a randomly chosen ribcage three times and then compared these reconstructions to the rest of the sample. Since these reconstructions were closer to their original counterpart than to the others, the remaining sample was reconstructed once. Next, we tested the intra-observer error during reconstructing using the Procrustes distances among the original ribcages and the reconstructions. We observed that first each ribcage reconstruction was clustered to its original counterpart and second there was a learning curve showing an improvement in the reconstruction process over time. Subsequently, we explored general size and shape differences among the original and reconstructed ribcages through a study of centroid size and a permutation test on the Procrustes distances (10,000 permutations), respectively. Specific shape differences between both groups were further examined through a principal component analysis in shape space. None of these analyses found statistical differences between the original and reconstructed ribcages (p > 0.05). Eventually, we extracted the mean shapes of the original ribcages and the reconstructions in order to visualize potential deviations caused by the anatomical considerations of the researcher. These results demonstrate that the protocol is accurate enough to be used when reconstructing a disarticulated human ribcage.
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.