Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39051265›Full record

ReviewMethods and protocols2024

A Review of Histological Techniques for Differentiating Human Bone from Animal Bone.

Emanuela Stan, Camelia-Oana Muresan, Ecaterina Daescu, Raluca Dumache, Veronica Ciocan, Stefania Ungureanu, Dan Costachescu, Alexandra Enache

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Methods and protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Emanuela StanDepartment of Neuroscience, Discipline of Forensic Medicine, Bioethics, Deontology and Medical Law, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0009-0002-2775-813X
Camelia-Oana MuresanDepartment of Neuroscience, Discipline of Forensic Medicine, Bioethics, Deontology and Medical Law, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0009-0006-3896-9599
Ecaterina DaescuInstitute of Legal Medicine Timisoara, 300610 Timisoara, Romania.
Raluca DumacheDepartment of Neuroscience, Discipline of Forensic Medicine, Bioethics, Deontology and Medical Law, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-1790-8130
Veronica CiocanDepartment of Neuroscience, Discipline of Forensic Medicine, Bioethics, Deontology and Medical Law, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.
Stefania UngureanuDepartment of Neuroscience, Discipline of Forensic Medicine, Bioethics, Deontology and Medical Law, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0009-0006-0670-0050
Dan CostachescuRadiology Laboratory, Emergency Municipal Clinical Hospital Timisoara, 300254 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-5944-3522
Alexandra EnacheDepartment of Neuroscience, Discipline of Forensic Medicine, Bioethics, Deontology and Medical Law, "Victor Babes" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first step in anthropological study is the positive identification of human remains, which can be a challenging undertaking when bones are broken. When bone pieces from different species are mixed together, it can be crucial to distinguish between them in forensic and archaeological contexts. For years, anthropology and archaeology have employed the histomorphological analysis of bones to evaluate species-specific variations. Based on variations in the dimensions and configuration of Haversian systems between the two groups, these techniques have been devised to distinguish between non-human and human bones. All of those techniques concentrate on a very particular kind of bone, zone, and segment. Histomorphometric techniques make the assumption that there are size, form, and quantity variations between non-humans and humans. The structural components of Haversian bones are significant enough to use discriminant function analysis to separate one from the other. This review proposes a comprehensive literature analysis of the various strategies or techniques available for distinguishing human from non-human bones to demonstrate that histomorphological analysis is the most effective method to be used in the case of inadequate or compromised samples.

Indexed as

Haversian systemshistomorphometric methodshuman bonenon-human bone

Identifiers

PMID39051265
PMCPMC11270420

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.