ReviewAmerican journal of biological anthropology2026
A Review of Research Aims for Historical Anatomical Skeletal Collections in the United States.
Review in American journal of biological anthropology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMany osteological methods used by biological anthropologists today were initially developed using historical anatomical skeletal collections such as the Hamann-Todd and Terry Collections. However, these collections were amassed through state legislation that permitted the dissection and curation of unclaimed individuals. These laws targeted low socioeconomic and marginalized communities that were less likely to be able to afford burial or claim relatives. Until recently, very few scholars have acknowledged the lived experiences of individuals who make up such collections. As such, there are ongoing conversations about the ethics of continued research with these collections. Part of evaluating this ethical dilemma is understanding exactly how these collections are being used for research, to evaluate to what extent these collections are used for methodological studies that neglect to consider the identities of the people in their samples. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, we categorized and analyzed research aims for 100 academic journal articles and 185 conference abstracts that used or significantly discussed the Terry, Hamann-Todd, Cobb, or Huntington Collections.
resultsResults show that most studies conducted using these collections have historically entertained questions of methodological significance, but there is a recent shift toward studies that focus on the lived experiences of individuals that compose historical anatomical skeletal collections.
conclusionsThis analysis demonstrates that the discipline is responding to recent debates about the ethics of historical skeletal collections and is moving toward establishing better recognition of the individuals that constitute some of the most influential collections in biological anthropology.
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.