Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42464993›Full record

ArticleNPJ heritage science2026

Legacy tree-ring dataset reveals rapid use of panels in 17th-century Dutch and Flemish painting workshops.

Kirsten Weterings, Marta Domínguez-Delmás, Sven Dupré

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ heritage science, 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

3 authors.

Kirsten WeteringsDepartment of History and Art History, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marta Domínguez-DelmásDepartment of Archaeology, Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Sven DupréFaculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dendrochronological research of panel paintings provides essential evidence for their dating and attribution. However, the uncertain interval between the tree's felling and a painting's completion, accounting for the transport, seasoning, and storage of the wood, hinders the accurate estimation of production dates. This study combines historical research with an analysis of dendrochronological data from over 1900 17th-century Dutch and Flemish panel paintings to examine the interval between tree felling and painting production, considering additional storage time at artist's workshops. Results show that panels were typically used within 4.6 to 7.5 years of felling (2.8 ± 2.5 years for French/Belgian/German, 3.4 ± 2.4 years for Polish, and 7.8 ± 1.7 years for Eastern Baltic oak). Paintings with boards from the same tree were completed within 1 to 1.8 years from each other. These findings serve to refine estimated production periods based on provenance of the wood and exact dendrochronological dates, aiding in the attribution of disputed artworks.

Identifiers

PMID42464993
PMCPMC13372665

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.