ArticleAnatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2026
Inter-microscope comparability of dental microwear texture data obtained from different optical profilometers: Part I Reproducibility of diet inference using different instruments.
Article in Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inter-microscope comparability of dental microwear texture data obtained from different optical profilometers: Part II Deriving instrument-specific correction equations for meta-analyses using published data.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Pooled it
- Feeding biomechanics in vertebrates and beyond.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Article
- Inter-microscope comparability of dental microwear texture data obtained from different optical profilometers: Part I Reproducibility of diet inference using different instruments.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dental microwear texture analysis (DMTA) has become a well-established method for dietary inference and reconstruction in both extant and extinct mammals and other tetrapods. As the volume of available data continues to grow, researchers could benefit from combining published data from various studies to perform meta-analyses. However, the different optical profilometers used to capture three-dimensional surface scans for DMTA are known to produce variation even when measuring the same surface. In this study, we compare DMTA data of 36 guinea pigs that received different diets in a controlled feeding experiment, measured using five different instruments: three confocal-scanning microscopes and two confocal laser-scanning microscopes. Each dataset is filtered according to in-house standards of the respective laboratories. Our findings reveal inter-microscope differences in the majority of the 40 DMTA parameters analyzed. Height and volume parameters were the most consistent across instruments, whereas density and complexity parameters exhibited pronounced differences. We thus propose DMTA parameters that were stable regardless of microscope. Despite these inter-microscope variations, the overall results from all instruments consistently show the same dietary differentiation among the guinea pig feeding groups, supporting the suitability of DMTA for reproducible and objective dietary inferences. To enhance data exchange, inter-lab comparability, and collaboration in the future, we propose a roadmap that includes the introduction of device-specific correction equations.
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.