Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39346809›Full record

ArticleIntegrative organismal biology (Oxford, England)2024

Volumetric versus Element-scaling Mass Estimation and Its Application to Permo-Triassic Tetrapods.

M A Wright, T J Cavanaugh, S E Pierce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Revised Body Mass Estimates for Extinct Lemurs.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. New perspectives on body size and shape evolution in dinosaurs.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

M A WrightMuseum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9468-3863
T J CavanaughMuseum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
S E PierceMuseum of Comparative Zoology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0717-1841

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Size has an impact on various aspects of an animal's biology, including physiology, biomechanics, and ecology. Accurately and precisely estimating size, in particular body mass, is therefore a core objective of paleobiologists. Two approaches for estimating body mass are common: whole-body volumetric models and individual element-scaling (e.g., bones, teeth). The latter has been argued to be more accurate, while the former more precise. Here, we use minimum convex hulls (MCHs) to generate a predictive volumetric model for estimating body mass across a broad taxonomic and size range (127 g - 2735 kg). We compare our MCH model to stylopodial-scaling, incorporating data from the literature, and find that MCH body mass estimation is both more accurate and more precise than stylopodial estimation. An explanation for the difference between methods is that reptile and mammal stylopod circumference and length dimensions scale differentially (slope 1.179 ± 0.102 vs. 1.038 ± 0.031, respectively), such that reptiles have more robust bones for a given size. Consequently, a mammalian-weighted stylopodial-scaling sample overestimates the body mass of larger reptiles, and this error increases with size. We apply both estimation equations to a sample of 12 Permo-Triassic tetrapods and find that stylopodial-scaling consistently estimates a higher body mass than MCH estimation, due to even more robust bones in extinct species (slope = 1.319 ± 0.213). Finally, we take advantage of our MCH models to explore constraints regarding the position of the center of mass (CoM) and find that relative body proportions (i.e., skull:tail ratio) influence CoM position differently in mammals, crocodylians, and Permo-Triassic tetrapods. Further, we find that clade-specific body segment expansion factors do not affect group comparisons but may be important for individual specimens with rather disproportionate bodies (e.g., the small-headed and large-tailed

Identifiers

PMID39346809
PMCPMC11438236

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.