ArticleThe Journal of experimental biology2025
Testing hypotheses of skull function with comparative finite element analysis: three methods reveal contrasting results.
Article in The Journal of experimental biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Skull morphology of the extinct Tasmanian tiger suggests unique biting style.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Hard-object feeding adaptations infer relative predator-prey size relationships in Devonian placoderms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- How complex must shape data be to model in vivo forces? Intraspecific level validation of in silico jaw strength estimates in a lizard.The Journal of experimental biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Ozboneviz: an Australian precedent in FAIR 3D imagery and extended biodiversity collections.Bioscience · 2025Article
- 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
Abstract
Comparative finite element analysis often involves standardising aspects of models to test equivalent loading scenarios across species. However, regarding feeding biomechanics of the vertebrate skull, what is considered 'equivalent' can depend on the hypothesis. Using 13 diversely shaped skulls of marsupial bettongs and potoroos (Potoroidae), we demonstrate that scaling muscle forces to standardise specific aspects of biting mechanics can produce clearly opposing comparisons of stress or strain that are differentially suited to address specific kinds of hypotheses. We therefore propose three categories of hypotheses for skull biting mechanics, each involving a unique method of muscle scaling to produce meaningful results: those comparing (1) the skull's efficiency in distributing muscle forces to the biting teeth, via standardising input muscle force to skull size, (2) structural biting adaptation through standardising mechanical advantage to simulate size-adjusted, equivalent bites and (3) feeding ecology affected by size, such as niche partitioning, via standardising bite reaction force.
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.