Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40740698›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Reliable reconstruction of cricket song from biophysical models and preserved specimens.

Ryan Weiner, Sarah Duke, Gabriella Simonelli, Nathan W Bailey, Natasha Mhatre

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ryan Weiner *Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah Duke *Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Gabriella Simonelli *Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Nathan W BaileySchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3531-7756
Natasha MhatreDepartment of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3618-306X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting the function of a biological structure solely from its morphology can be a very powerful tool in several fields of biology, but especially in evolutionary reconstruction. In the field of invertebrate acoustic communication, reconstructing the acoustic properties of sound-producing forewings in crickets has been based on two very divergent methods, finite element modelling (FEM) and vibrometric measurements from preserved specimens. Both methods, however, make strong simplifying assumptions that have not been tested and the reliability of inferences made from either method remains in question. Here, we rigorously test and refine both reconstruction methods using the well-known

Indexed as

bioacousticsbiophysical modellingcricketsfinite element analysismorphological signal evolution

Identifiers

PMID40740698
PMCPMC12307059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.