ArticlePloS one2025
Introducing "Validated entheses-Based reconstruction of activity 2.0" (VERA 2.0): Semi-automated 3D analysis of bone surface changes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Hominin Air Sac Loss in Light of Phylogenetically Meaningful Evidence.Evolutionary anthropology · 2025Article
- A Standardized, Three-Dimensional Cropping Protocol for Analyzing the Medial Epicondyle of the Humerus.American journal of biological anthropology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In archaeological sciences, the macroscopic morphology of distinct dry bone structures, such as tubercles, ridges, epicondyles, and fossae, is routinely used to infer habitual activity patterns in past human populations, extinct hominins, and other animals. This study introduces "Validated Entheses-based Reconstruction of Activity 2.0" (VERA 2.0), a new method for precisely quantifying 3D surface irregularities on enthesis-bearing bone structures. Building on VERA 1.0, first introduced by the same author in 2016 and later named in a 2021 literature review, VERA 2.0 enhances the previous approach by incorporating a semi-automated image segmentation technique that reduces manual input while maintaining accuracy. The method involves selecting a predefined broad bone surface region, after which an algorithm automatically detects subtle surface irregularities (see example video in the step-by-step protocol at dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl82z8dl2w/v3). Validation analyses confirm VERA 2.0's precision and reliability for activity reconstruction through intra- and inter-observer repeatability tests, experimental research comparing activity and control laboratory specimens, and analyses of historical human skeletons with extensively detailed long-term occupational data. Moreover, while this anthropological 3D measuring protocol paper cannot and does not aim to analyze the anatomical and histological nature of bone surface irregularities, preliminary anatomical dissection and virtual analysis of a cadaveric thumb enthesis suggest a possible association with attaching muscles and ligaments. Future anatomical and histological research aiming to explore soft-hard tissue interactions could clarify how these identified surface changes exactly relate to the attaching tissues. Overall, VERA 2.0 provides a robust, efficient quantitative tool for inferring activity patterns from skeletal remains, with applications across paleontological, paleoanthropological, and bioarchaeological contexts.
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.