ReviewBone reports2026
Interdisciplinarity of secondary osteons: relevance of bioarchaeological and palaeontological research in biomedical cortical bone histology studies.
Review in Bone reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Secondary osteons are fundamental products of bone metabolic processes. They accumulate, crowd, and superimpose over themselves over the lifespan of the individual and capture significant biological, environmental, and even social information. They are crucial in biomedical research as a reflection of bone health and disease. Because bone preserves after death, secondary osteons offer a window into past human and animal lives. They are arguably one of very few biological traits that have been examined across multiple disciplines that work with modern and ancient samples. Here, we review articles indexed in PubMed that examine secondary osteons but span beyond biomedicine, such as palaeontology and bioarchaeology. We aim to identify commonalities and differences across these disciplines to highlight potential for exchange of existing complementary data and future collaborative avenues. We find that 9 % of articles reporting new secondary osteon data (622 obtained) represent archaeological or fossil material. The key shared positive outcome across these disciplines has been data and histology images that provide insights into age, sex, behaviour, species discrimination, and anatomical variation. The main limitations of using ancient samples are the unknown and thus estimated demographic information of human and animal remains studied, and artifacts of taphonomy and bioerosion seen in bone histology that originate from post-mortem, burial, and diagenetic processes, which are not present in biomedical samples. We conclude that a histological analysis of secondary osteons can be a versatile tool in different fields of bone research and encourage transdisciplinary collaboration to better improve our knowledge of bone remodelling processes.
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.