ArticleJournal of anatomy2025
Differential performance of aqueous- and ethylic-Lugol's iodine stain to visualize anatomy in μCT-scanned vertebrates.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2025. 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.
- Anatomical Atlas and Three-Dimensional Musculoskeletal Model of the Flight Apparatus in the Southern Screamer (Anseriformes:Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Optimizing diceCT protocols for post-mortem cetacean imaging: diffusible iodine enhancement of a rare narrow-ridged finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis) fetal specimen using clinical-grade computed tomography.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Differential performance of aqueous- and ethylic-Lugol's iodine stain to visualize anatomy in μCT-scanned vertebrates.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- The Diffusion Diaries: Diffusible Iodine-Based Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography for Vertebrate Natural History Specimens.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Museum specimens are an increasingly important tool for studying global biodiversity. With the advent of diffusible iodine-based contrast-enhanced computed tomography (diceCT), researchers can now visualize an organism's internal soft tissue anatomy without the need for physical dissection or other highly destructive sampling methods. However, there are many considerations when deciding which method of staining to use for diceCT to produce the best gray-scale contrast for facilitating downstream anatomical analyses. The general lack of direct comparisons among staining methodologies can make it difficult for researchers to determine which approaches are most appropriate for their study. Here, we compare the performance of ethylic-Lugol's iodine solution with aqueous-Lugol's staining solution across several vertebrate orders to assess differential imaging outcomes. We found that ethylic-Lugol's is better for visualizing muscle attachment to bone but provides overall lower contrast between soft tissue types. Comparatively, aqueous-based Lugol's provides high-contrast imaging among soft tissue types, although bone is more difficult to discern. We conclude that the choice of staining methodology largely depends on the type of anatomical data the researcher wishes to collect, and we provide a decision-based framework for assessing which staining methodology (ethylic or aqueous) is most appropriate for desired imaging results.
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.