Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39058390›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2025

Inter- and intra-observer variation in phytolith morphometry.

Welmoed A Out, Rand Evett, Kristýna Hošková, Robert C Power, Javier Ruiz-Pérez, Monica Tromp, Luc Vrydaghs, Kali Wade, Mario Hasler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2025. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Welmoed A OutDepartment of Archaeological Science and Conservation, Moesgaard Museum, 8270, Højbjerg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7262-5358
Rand EvettDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8403-6665
Kristýna HoškováDepartment of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University, 128 00 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-0728-5147
Robert C PowerSchool of Archaeology, University College Dublin, D04 F6X4, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-7425-5709
Javier Ruiz-PérezDepartment of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8593-7393
Monica TrompSouthern Pacific Archaeological Research (SPAR), Archaeology Programme, University of Otago, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-0747-9099
Luc VrydaghsArchaeology, Environmental Changes & Geo-chemistry (AMGC), Department of Art Studies and Archaeology, VUB, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2250-2883
Kali WadeAtlatl Archaeology Ltd, Lethbridge, T1J 2P6, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8275-900X
Mario HaslerVariationsstatistik, Kiel University, 24098, Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4781-2386

Funding

Hugo de Vries fund, The Netherlands HDVF2021-09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArchaeobotanists and palaeoecologists use geometric morphometrics extensively to identify plant opal phytoliths. Particularly when applied to assemblages of phytoliths from concentrations retrieved from closed contexts, morphometric data from archaeological phytoliths compared with similar data from reference material can allow taxonomic attribution. Observer variation is one aspect of phytolith morphometry that has received little attention but might be an important source of error and a potential cause of misidentification of plant remains. SCOPE: To investigate inter- and intra-observer variation in phytolith morphometry, eight researchers (observers) from different laboratories measured 50 samples each from three phytolith morphotypes (Bilobate, Bulliform flabellate and Elongate dendritic) three times, under the auspices of the International Committee for Phytolith Morphometrics (ICPM).

methodsData for 17 size and shape variables were collected for each phytolith by manually digitizing a phytolith outline (mask) from a photograph, followed by measurement of the mask with open-source morphometric software. KEY

resultsInter-observer variation ranged from 0 to 23 % difference from the mean of all observers. Intra-observer variation ranged from 0 to 9 % difference from the mean of individual observers per week. Inter- and intra-observer variation was generally higher among inexperienced researchers.

conclusionsScaling errors were a major cause of variation and occurred more with less experienced researchers, which is likely to be related to familiarity with data collection. The results indicate that inter- and intra-observer variation can be reduced substantially by providing clear instructions for and training with the equipment, photograph capturing, software, data collection and data cleaning. In this paper, the ICPM provides recommendations to minimize variation. Advances in automatic data collection might eventually reduce inter- and intra-observer variation, but until this is common practice, the ICPM recommends that phytolith morphometric analyses adhere to standardized guidelines to assure that measured phytolith variables are accurate, consistent and comparable between different researchers and laboratories.

Indexed as

ArchaeologyFossilsPlantsBotanyObserver Variationarchaeobotanybotanical microremainsGeometric morphometryImageJmethodologyphytolith analysistaxonomic identification

Identifiers

PMID39058390
PMCPMC12064434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.