ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Persistent body size bias in the fossil record of Cenozoic North American mammals.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 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.
- Persistent body size bias in the fossil record of Cenozoic North American mammals.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Body size is a key organismal trait with profound implications ranging from individual physiology to large-scale macroecological or macroevolutionary phenomena. Among extant terrestrial vertebrates, peak diversity commonly occurs at small body size. Similarities between the body size distributions of fossil and extant mammals have been used to argue that fossil record signals are robust, yet preservation and collector biases disproportionately favour the sampling of large taxa and probably under-represent small-sized diversity. Here, we quantify the effects of these biases on the body size distributions of North American mammals through the Cenozoic. We assess how these distributions have changed with new palaeontological discoveries and evaluate sampling standardization as a potential correction for body size bias. Our results show bias in the mammal record to be persistent and severe. Sampling standardization has no consistent effect on recovered distribution shape probably because sample coverage estimators cannot account for changes in the scope of the sampling universe driven by a combination of historical worker interest and the preservational characteristics of a small pool of formations. Short of a novel standardization method that can account for publication biases, deriving non-artefactual fossil body size signals may ultimately depend on targeted, systematic sampling of exceptional deposits.
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.