scholarly journals Anatomical network analysis of the musculoskeletal system reveals integration loss and parcellation boost during the fins-to-limbs transition

Evolution ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borja Esteve-Altava ◽  
Julia L. Molnar ◽  
Peter Johnston ◽  
John R. Hutchinson ◽  
Rui Diogo

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vance Powell ◽  
Borja Esteve-Altava ◽  
Julia Molnar ◽  
Brian Villmoare ◽  
Alesha Pettit ◽  
...  


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Rasskin-Gutman ◽  
Borja Esteve-Altava


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Diogo ◽  
Julia L. Molnar ◽  
Campbell Rolian ◽  
Borja Esteve-Altava


Author(s):  
Borja Esteve-Altava ◽  
Diego Rasskin-Gutman


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e0127653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borja Esteve-Altava ◽  
Julia C. Boughner ◽  
Rui Diogo ◽  
Brian A. Villmoare ◽  
Diego Rasskin-Gutman


Author(s):  
Borja Esteve-Altava ◽  
Diego Rasskin-Gutman


Author(s):  
Borja Esteve-Altava

AbstractThe primate skull hosts a unique combination of anatomical features among mammals, such as a short face, wide orbits, and big braincase. Together with a trend to fuse bones in late development, these features define the anatomical organization of the skull of primates—which bones articulate to each other and the pattern this creates. Here, I quantified the anatomical organization of the skull of 17 primates and 15 non-primate mammals using anatomical network analysis to assess how the skulls of primates have diverged from those of other mammals, and whether their anatomical differences coevolved with brain size. Results show that primates have a greater anatomical integration of their skulls and a greater disparity among bones than other non-primate mammals. Brain size seems to contribute in part to this difference, but its true effect could not be conclusively proven. This supports the hypothesis that primates have a distinct anatomical organization of the skull, but whether this is related to their larger brains remains an open question.



2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Borja Esteve‐Altava ◽  
Julia Boughner ◽  
Rui Diogo ◽  
Diego Rasskin‐Gutman


2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, is available and includes numerous changes that will affect both evaluators who and systems that use the AMA Guides. The Fifth Edition is nearly twice the size of its predecessor (613 pages vs 339 pages) and contains three additional chapters (the musculoskeletal system now is split into three chapters and the cardiovascular system into two). Table 1 shows how chapters in the Fifth Edition were reorganized from the Fourth Edition. In addition, each of the chapters is presented in a consistent format, as shown in Table 2. This article and subsequent issues of The Guides Newsletter will examine these changes, and the present discussion focuses on major revisions, particularly those in the first two chapters. (See Table 3 for a summary of the revisions to the musculoskeletal and pain chapters.) Chapter 1, Philosophy, Purpose, and Appropriate Use of the AMA Guides, emphasizes objective assessment necessitating a medical evaluation. Most impairment percentages in the Fifth Edition are unchanged from the Fourth because the majority of ratings currently are accepted, there is limited scientific data to support changes, and ratings should not be changed arbitrarily. Chapter 2, Practical Application of the AMA Guides, describes how to use the AMA Guides for consistent and reliable acquisition, analysis, communication, and utilization of medical information through a single set of standards.



2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-4

Abstract Lesions of the peripheral nervous system (PNS), whether due to injury or illness, commonly result in residual symptoms and signs and, hence, permanent impairment. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fourth Edition, divides PNS deficits into sensory and motor and includes pain in the former. This article, which regards rating sensory and motor deficits of the lower extremities, is continued from the March/April 2000 issue of The Guides Newsletter. Procedures for rating extremity neural deficits are described in Chapter 3, The Musculoskeletal System, section 3.1k for the upper extremity and sections 3.2k and 3.2l for the lower limb. Sensory deficits and dysesthesia are both disorders of sensation, but the former can be interpreted to mean diminished or absent sensation (hypesthesia or anesthesia) Dysesthesia implies abnormal sensation in the absence of a stimulus or unpleasant sensation elicited by normal touch. Sections 3.2k and 3.2d indicate that almost all partial motor loss in the lower extremity can be rated using Table 39. In addition, Section 4.4b and Table 21 indicate the multistep method used for spinal and some additional nerves and be used alternatively to rate lower extremity weakness in general. Partial motor loss in the lower extremity is rated by manual muscle testing, which is described in the AMA Guides in Section 3.2d.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document