Find research datasets worth reusing

Figure 3 in Eigensurface analysis, ecology, and modelling of morphological adaptation in the falconiform humerus (Falconiformes: Aves)

Figure 3. Creation of 3D humerus proximal–dorsal surface sampling grids. Upper row: original clouds of scanned points located in xyz space for Falco sparverius (American kestrel, left), an open habitat species that forages using hovering flight; Accipiter cooperii (Cooper's hawk, centre), a forest habitat perch-hunter; and Gyps africanus (white-backed vulture, right), a woodland-dwelling, soaring scavenger. Middle row: adaptive mesh representations of the original point clouds interpolated to 2000–3000 mesh vertices. Lower row: filled and smoothed mesh illustrating the degree of surface detail captured by the surface sampling procedure. Note this is not the level of detail captured and employed in the eigensurface analysis procedure (see Fig. 4). Rather, the lower row figures represent the morphological starting points for eigensurface analysis.

Figure 5 in Eigensurface analysis, ecology, and modelling of morphological adaptation in the falconiform humerus (Falconiformes: Aves)

Figure 5. Ordination of the 50 falconiform humerus surfaces in the space formed by the first three eigensurface axes. When taken together this three-dimensional space accounts for 62.4% of observed surface shape variation. Species abbreviations are given in Appendix 1. Note the strong clustering of taxa into non-phylogenetic groups in the subspace, circled in the figure. The locations of these same specimens in the space formed by the first 21 eigensurface (E-Surf) axes (accounting for 95.4% of observed surface shape variation) were used as a summary of biologically important shape variation for all subsequent analyses. See text for discussion.

Figure 11 in Eigensurface analysis, ecology, and modelling of morphological adaptation in the falconiform humerus (Falconiformes: Aves)

Figure 11. Ordination of the falconiform species for which foraging habitat information was available (34 species) within the space of the first two canonical variates axes of 18 eigensurface shape variables. Based on this result 91.9% of training set species were assigned to foraging habitat groups correctly on the basis of proximity to the group means; however, a likelihood ratio test showed that there was a 15.6% chance that this result could have been achieved using a dataset that lacked subgroup structure, and a cross-validation test could only accurately assign 55.6% of species to the correct habitat group. Rows of shape models below the ordination plot represent along-axis coordinates through the canonical variates space for CV-1 calculated using the method of MacLeod (2007). Although differences between the models were extremely subtle, in higher scoring specimens the bicipital crest (BC) extends slightly further distally towards the shaft and the bicipital surface is slightly flatter. Note the CV-2 axis contains no information with regard to group discrimination and should not be interpreted. Species abbreviations are listed in Appendix 1.

Figure 10 in Eigensurface analysis, ecology, and modelling of morphological adaptation in the falconiform humerus (Falconiformes: Aves)

Figure 10. Shape models representing along-axis trajectories through the canonical variates space for the CVA of flight style [CV-1 (first row), CV-2 (second row), CV-3 (third row) and CV-4 (fourth row)]. Models were calculated using the method of MacLeod (2007). Detailed inspection of the CV-1 models revealed that low scoring hovering taxa had humeri with larger, more pointed deltoid crests (DC), more rounded bicipital crests (BC) and more distinct bicipital furrows (BF); in higher scoring soaring taxa the humerus is more slender with a flatter appearance, the humeral head (H) is more domed and the external tuberosity (ET) is in a more proximal position. The CV-2 axis represented a shift between chase-hunting, perch-hunting, and low-flying species. From the CV-2 models it is clear that higher scoring taxa have more robust humeri with a thicker shaft (S), larger DC and BC. In specimens that have a lower score on CV-3 (which tended to be perch-hunters), the distal portion of the deltoid crest (DC distal) is larger than in higher scoring specimens, which have smaller DCs and less defined BFs. A high score on CV-4 is indicative of a flatter bicipital surface and a smaller DC (particularly the proximal portion) that extends further down the shaft.

Figure 7 in Eigensurface analysis, ecology, and modelling of morphological adaptation in the falconiform humerus (Falconiformes: Aves)

Figure 7. Results of a CVA for the original 20 eigensurface variables (A and B), and a projection of the original data into a space formed by the eigenvector decomposition of the covariance matrix of the standardized contrasts between internal nodes of the cladogram in Figure 2 as modelled by the phylogenetically independent contrasts method (C and D, see text for discussion). Note the well-defined lineage-group separation achieved by both analyses and the overall similarities in lineage-group placements relative to one another. The fact that highly structured lineage-specific differences in shape variation remain part of the system even after phylogenetic contrasts have been removed strongly suggests that the dominant shape variation factor(s) being expressed in the eigensurface space cannot be accounted for under a simple model of phylogenetic covariation. See text for discussion.

Figure 12 in Eigensurface analysis, ecology, and modelling of morphological adaptation in the falconiform humerus (Falconiformes: Aves)

Figure 12. Ordination of the falconiform species for which migratory behaviour information was available (32 species) within the space of the first two canonical variates axes of ten eigensurface shape variables. Based on this result 90.6% of training set species were assigned to migratory behaviour groups correctly on the basis of proximity to the group means. Rows of shape models below the ordination plot represent along-axis coordinates through the canonical variates space for CV-1, calculated using the method of MacLeod (2007). In high-scoring taxa the external tuberosity (ET) is more prominent and other protrusions may be noted around the humeral head (H), while in lower scoring taxa the humeral head has a smoother, more rounded appearance. See text for further discussion. Note the CV-2 axis contains no information with regard to group discrimination and should not be interpreted. Species abbreviations are listed in Appendix 1.

opencc-by-4.0Jun 2023View details →

Developmental changes in tibia and humerus of goose: morphometric, densitometric, and mechanical analysis

<p>This dataset supplements the article with the title "Developmental changes in tibia and humerus of goose: morphometric, densitometric, and mechanical analysis" subbmieted by the authors to Animal. A dataset showing experimantal data of the graphs shown in the main manusctipt.</p>

Evaluation of Treatment of Fractures of the Humerus With a Plate.

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00408291. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid (TXA) in Humerus ORIF

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05802238. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 14.

Influence of Local Bone Status on Complications After Surgical Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01143675. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 4. Publications: 1.

Assessment of the Surgical Handling and Performance of the X-ray-based Tracking and Navigation System "Xin1 Humerus System" Evaluated From 10 Proximal Humerus Plate Fixations

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03427112. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.

Surgical Versus Non-surgical Treatment of Displaced Proximal Humerus Fracture in Adults Aged 50 to 65 Years

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06416618. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 2. Publications: 5.

Randomised Study Between Intramedullary Locking Nails and Locking Plates for Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01557413. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

Trial Comparing Proximal Tibia and Proximal Humerus Infusion Rates Using the NIO Intraosseous Device

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02700867. IPD Sharing: UNDECIDED. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

RSA vs. Nonop for 3 & 4-Part Proximal Humerus Fractures

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03599336. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

Operative Treatment of 2-fragment-fractures (AO 11-A3) of the Proximal Humerus in the Elderly: Cement Augmented Locking Plate Philos vs. Proximal Humerus Nail MultiLoc

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02609906. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 5.

Outcome After Plate Osteosynthesis of Proximal Humerus Fractures Using Continous Passive Motioning Therapy

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05952622. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

Parathyroid Hormone for the Treatment of Humerus Fractures

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01687374. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.

The Effect of the Timing of Postoperative Mobilisation After Locking Plate Osteosynthesis of Fractures of the Surgical Neck of the Humerus

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01524965. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.

Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Techniques in Proximal Humerus Fractures

ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05960435. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.