ArticleScientific reports2024
Anthropogenic modification of a giant ground sloth tooth from Brazil supported by a multi-disciplinary approach.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peptide Mass Fingerprinting of South American Xenarthrans: A New Resource for Zooarcheology and Palaeontology.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- FirstProceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying evidence of human modification of extinct animal remains, such as Pleistocene megafauna, is challenging due to the similarity of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic taphonomic features observed under optical microscopy. Here, we re-investigate a Late Pleistocene ground sloth tooth from northeast Brazil, previously suggested as human-modified based only on optical observation. To characterize the macro- and micro-morphological characteristics of the marks preserved in this tooth and evaluate potential human modification, we used stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) supplemented by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), UV photoluminescence (UV/PL), synchrotron-based X-ray fluorescence (SR-XRF), and synchrotron micro-computed tomography (SR-µCT). These methods allowed us to discriminate non-anthropogenic taphonomic features (root and sedimentary damage), anthropogenic marks, and histological features. The latter shows the infiltration of exogenous elements into the dentine from the sediments. Our evidence demonstrates the sequence of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic taphonomic modification of this tooth and supports its initial intentional modification by humans. We highlight the benefits of emerging imaging and spectral imaging techniques to investigate and diagnose human modification in fossil and archaeological records and propose that human modification of tooth tissues should be further considered when studying possibly anthropogenically altered fossil remains.
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.