ArticleNature communications2026
Fossil record biases skew inferences of mammal trait evolution.
Article in Nature communications, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fossil record is key to elucidating past biodiversity dynamics, yet it remains incomplete and non-uniform, governed by factors such as sedimentation rates, species' range and body size, and sampling effort. How these biases distort inferences on evolutionary trends remains poorly understood. Here, we simulate a future fossil record of present-day land mammals to quantify the extent to which real evolutionary patterns can be recovered from fragmentary fossil data. Species are filtered according to sediment availability, species' range and body size, and spatial and taxonomic sampling biases under three preservation rates, and then systematically pruned from a baseline mammal phylogeny before analyses of body mass and diet evolution through phylogenetic comparative methods. We find that biological and taxonomic filters strongly skew these inferences, while spatial filters do not significantly distort them. Our results provide first-order estimates of how fossil record incompleteness can bias our interpretation of deep-time biodiversity change.
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.