ArticlePloS one2026
Identification of tooth traces from a Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) Edmontosaurus annectens bonebed in the Lance Formation, Wyoming, U.S.A.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying the origin of perforating lesions on fossil bone is often difficult, and many are considered tooth traces, in spite of more likely and more parsimonious etiologies. Much of this confusion stems from tooth trace criteria that are ambiguous when the context for the lesions is not considered. Mistaken identification of tooth traces has led to misleading interpretations of animal behavior. This study of tooth traces on fossil bones critically reviews previous criteria and applies them to assessing bones from an Edmontosaurus annectens bonebed within the Lance Formation, Wyoming, USA. Of the 3013 bones examined, thirteen bones had features indicative of tooth traces based on gross appearance. Of these, one bone had perforations determined to have a different etiology. Twelve bones had traces attributed to tooth marks, including four bones with Knethichnus parallelum and Linichnus serratus ichnotaxa. Tyrannosaurus rex was identified as the likely inflictor of traces attributable to both ichnotaxa, by comparison of denticle density of carnivore teeth within the bonebed with striation/serration density of the traces. The importance of context in the analysis of perforating lesions on fossil bones is shown through the mistaken identification of features such as neurovasculature foramina and lesions associated with pathology as tooth traces. This study contributes to the literature on biting behavior and refines the criteria used to identify perforations caused by bite marks. The application of these refined criteria also proved useful in accurately identifying tooth traces on bone. This, in turn, enhances the guidelines for recognizing perforations as tooth traces and encourages further research on this topic.
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.