Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42032250›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

From engineered standards to natural bone: re-constraining topographical scanning for heritage samples.

Christopher G Tompkins, Holly Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Christopher G TompkinsDepartment of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, United Kingdom. christopher.tompkins1@nottingham.ac.uk.
Holly MillerDepartment of Classics and Archaeology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The microscopic topographical scanning of bone material is a common practice for multiple fields, such as archaeology, medicine, and criminology. However, assessments of whether the tools used to perform these scans are accurate on these objects have yet to be performed. In this work, the performance of the two most common scanning techniques used on bone items, focus variation and 3D confocal scanning, are preliminarily assessed, revealing previously unknown limitations with current measurement practice and technologies. Across a range of bone specimens, the same limitation appears, which does not occur on any of a subset of engineered materials tested. The types of features that bone-focused work would commonly asses, such as cutmarks, are revealed to be the most susceptible to distortion. 3D confocal is preliminarily determined as the more accurate technique to use on bone. The discrepancies discovered in this work begin to answer some of the unsolved repeatability problems noted during previous work on bone objects, and highlight how future equipment must be redesigned to accommodate this new style of emerging, critical, applications.

Indexed as

Bone and BonesAnimalsHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMicroscopy, Confocal

Identifiers

PMID42032250
PMCPMC13276365

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.