ArticleHeliyon2024
Interobserver variation affects accuracy of inference in life history studies using cementochronology.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Cementochronology is a method for assessing chronological age and identifying other life-history parameters (LHPs) from incremental lines of acellular extrinsic fibre cementum (AEFC) in most mammalian teeth. The aim of this study is to question the accuracy of this technique when used as a stand-alone age estimation method, and to examine how the number of observers may alter accuracy. Design: This research is based on an extant clinical study conducted on 10 human teeth with the patients' anamnestic data. Nine observers used cementochronology to count AEFC incremental lines from 82 digital images. The counting was performed at three non-standardised areas on each image, totalling 246 counts per observer. Resultant observer counts were compared using the coefficient of variation method. Results: The mean deviation of cementum estimated age from known chronological age of the participants in the study is 5.2 years. Conclusion: Our study shows that further critical examination of the current cementochronology technique is essential, due to the subjectivity of line counting. The number of skilled observers in the study may improve the overall accuracy of the technique. These issues have wider implications, as many researchers rely on accurate scientific inferences being made by cementum-based studies to support or refute overarching demographic models and grand evolutionary narratives grounded by life history theory. Until this issue is resolved cementochronology should only be used alongside other age estimation methods.
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.