ArticleNature communications2026
Evolutionary drivers of encephalization and facial reduction in the genus Homo.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. 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.
- Evolutionary drivers of encephalization and facial reduction in the genus Homo.Nature communications · 2026Article
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
The evolution of cranial morphology in the genus Homo is marked by increasing encephalization and reduced facial robusticity through time. These changes are often assumed to be the product of directional natural selection for larger brain size, presumed to be associated with greater cognitive abilities, and for decreasing facial size to lower energetic costs, as masticatory demands were reduced through food processing and tool use. Here, we test this hypothesis by exploring the goodness-of-fit of the predictions of six evolutionary processes to the observed cranial morphological variation in Homo. We analyzed comprehensive neurocranial and facial 3D landmark coordinate datasets, grouped into eight Operational Taxonomic Units starting with early Homo and representing two lineages, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis. Our neurocranial analysis found strongest support for models of neutral evolution (Unbiased Random Walk) and stasis across both lineages. Similarly, the face shows strongest support for models of stasis, strict stasis, and neutral evolution (Unbiased Random Walk). Our findings suggest a limited role for gradual directional selection and underscore the importance of stabilizing selection and constraints in our lineage's evolution, highlighting the importance of environmental constraints and possibly cultural behaviors as core drivers of human evolution.
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.