ArticleAnatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2025
"Visiting scientist effect"? Exploring the impact of time-lags in the digitization of 2D landmark data.
Article in Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007), 2025. 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.
- "Visiting scientist effect"? Exploring the impact of time-lags in the digitization of 2D landmark data.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Measurement error (ME) in geometric morphometrics has been the subject of countless articles, but none specific to the effect of time lags on landmark digitization error. Yet, especially for visiting scientists working on museum collections, it is not uncommon to collect data in multiple rounds, with interruptions of weeks or years. To explore the impact of time lags on Procrustes shape analysis, I repeatedly digitized the same landmarks, on photographs of crania of adult yellow-bellied marmots, at progressively longer time intervals, ranging from a few hours to days, weeks and, in one case, many years. Using a battery of methods, I found that there is indeed a time-related systematic ME suggesting the possibility of a "visiting scientist effect" biasing shape patterns. However, the relationship between time lags and the magnitude of the bias is not simple and linear, but complex. Interestingly, the impact of the bias on the results of tests of sexual dimorphism and allometry is modest, and mostly negligible, unless the design of the data collection is highly unbalanced. When this happens, as in a simulated case where females are digitized first and males only later (or vice versa), the effect of the bias on tests of biological variation becomes important and can even lead to opposite conclusions on group differences. I will discuss when systematic ME in landmark data is more problematic and how to try to mitigate the impact of a potential "visiting scientist effect" on shape analyses.
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.