ArticlePeerJ2024
Calibrations without raw data-A response to "Seasonal calibration of the end-cretaceous Chicxulub impact event".
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent article by DePalma et al. reported that the season of the End-Cretaceous mass extinction was confined to spring/summer on the basis of stable isotope analyses and supplementary observations. An independent study that was concurrently under review reached a similar conclusion using osteohistology and stable isotope analyses. We identified anomalies surrounding the stable isotope analyses reported by DePalma et al. Primary data are not provided, the laboratory where the analyses were performed is not identified, and the methods are insufficiently specified to enable accurate replication. Furthermore, isotopic graphs for carbon and oxygen contain irregularities such as missing data points, duplicate data points, and identical-length error bars for both elements despite different scales, that appear inconsistent with laboratory instrument outputs. A close examination of such methodological omissions and data irregularities can help to raise the standards for future studies of seasonality and prevent inaccurate claims or confirmation bias.
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.