logo
Dinosaur fossil found underneath a Denver museum's parking lot

Dinosaur fossil found underneath a Denver museum's parking lot

Yahoo14 hours ago
The phrase 'leave no stone unturned' has taken on new meaning for paleontologists at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science who discovered a special fossil hidden right under their noses — beneath the museum's parking lot.
The dinosaur bone came to light in January during a drilling project to study the layers of rock underneath the site, the museum announced on July 9. The team had planned to pull an Earth core sample, a long cylindrical piece of rock or sediment, and came across a partial fossil.
At about 2.5 inches (6.4 centimeters ) in diameter — the width of the extracted rock core — the disk-shaped specimen is the vertebra of a plant-eating dinosaur that roamed the region more than 67 million years ago. At a depth of about 760 feet (230 meters) below the surface, it is the oldest and deepest fossil ever found within Denver, according to the museum's release.
There is not enough of the fossil to determine its species, but this rare find helps fill in a picture of the ecosystem during the Cretaceous period in what's now Denver, said Dr. James Hagadorn, the museum's curator of geology. Scientists were able to narrow the fossil down to an herbivorous group of bipedal dinosaurs known as ornithopods, and it's the first ornithopod to be found in Denver's city limits.
'We knew those dinosaurs were (nearby in other parts of) Colorado or Wyoming, but we didn't know that they were in Denver, too … but we suspected it right at this time period,' Hagadorn said. 'Now, we have another plant eater that's been cruising around Denver munching on, who knows, gingers and palm leaves and other ferns and plants 67 million years ago.'
Coring for dinosaur fossils
The unexpected addition is now on display at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, which has around 115,000 dinosaur, plant and mammal fossils in its collection, according to its website. Since there are only two other instances in the world of a dinosaur bone having been uncovered in a core sample, Hagadorn said he believes the newly found vertebra is the first to be put on display.
More of the ornithopod fossil remains underground, but there are no plans to excavate the deeply buried specimen, Hagadorn said. 'Unfortunately, we can't excavate our entire parking lot. Parking is really important at the museum and in all cultural (centers ),' he said. 'But the bonus here is that people can now park right on top of a dinosaur.'
The drilling project's initial purpose was to investigate whether the museum could switch from natural gas to a geothermal energy system. Researchers still have about 1,000 feet of extracted rock core left to analyze — which could contain fossils, minerals or other structures that weren't visible on the core's exterior, Hagadorn said. Further study of the sample will also help experts at the museum better understand the region's geology and other environmental factors such as drinking water.
While studying the rock core has many purposes, finding a dinosaur fossil was not something the team expected, Hagadorn added. 'It's like the lucky strike. I mean, who would have figured? … It's like Robin Hood splitting an arrow in half, or an apple, from 2 ½ football fields away.'
Even without the full fossil available, the small bone allows scientists to better understand the diversity of dinosaurs that once roamed the Denver Basin near the end of the Cretaceous period, Hagadorn said. He likened it to a diorama that has one more confirmed character added to the picture.
Colorado Cretaceous period
The finding is a 'nice example of how dinosaur fossils are distributed around in our environment, even in … places that might seem unlikely, like in the middle of the city of Denver,' said Dr. Paul Olsen, a paleontologist and Arthur D. Storke Memorial Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Olsen was not involved with the discovery.
'It's illustrative of how dinosaur bones and other fossils are really not terribly rare, and anytime you have a really good way of viewing the rock … you will run into fossils,' he added. 'And fairly often, if (the rock) is the right age, you'll run into dinosaur bones.'
Most often, rock coring is performed after a fossil has been discovered, because it can give scientists a better look at the layering within the rock and what the environment was like millions of years ago, Olsen said.
Colorado tends to be the sweet spot for Cretaceous fossils due to the number of rocks from that period near the surface that volcanoes haven't harmed or faults haven't broken up, Hagadorn said.
In light of the parking lot discovery, paleontologists were inspired to go back and look at available satellite and elevation data to date all other fossils previously found within the Denver metro area, including a Tyrannosaurus rex, Triceratops and Torosaurus, and other major fossil deposits. Before that analysis, the team only knew that the ornithopod vertebra was from the Late Cretaceous period. With the new data, which was published in June in the journal Rocky Mountain Geology, researchers were able to give the newly discovered fossil, as well as others included in the study, a more precise age.
'No one ever dated these things before,' Hagadorn said. 'It wasn't very feasible to do that in the past, but today, we were able to use some specialized maps, geologic maps, GIS (geographic information systems) and really precise elevations that you can now get from satellites to place all these things in space and then in time.'
While most fossils within the study were found in more rural areas, the ornithopod vertebra highlights remaining fossils yet to be discovered, particularly in untapped urban areas. Discovery of the bone within the core, and the use of more precise dating techniques to understand its place in time, allows for better understanding of the changing world, Columbia's Olsen said.
'These kinds of studies give humans context of where they fit in the history of the universe and the history of the world,' said Olsen, who also didn't participate in the new analysis.
'It documents the changes through time that occurred, and sometimes we learn really astounding things. … And at a much more granular level, it gives us ways of trying to understand how the world actually works, in terms of developing hypotheses of climate change (or) hypotheses of mass extinction,' he added. 'So all of this gives us context for understanding, and sort of a library of reality, to go compare our theories with.'
Taylor Nicioli is a freelance journalist based in New York.
Solve the daily Crossword
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rare 'flesh-eating' bacteria claims 4 lives in Florida: What to know
Rare 'flesh-eating' bacteria claims 4 lives in Florida: What to know

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Rare 'flesh-eating' bacteria claims 4 lives in Florida: What to know

Florida health officials reported that four people died and over a half dozen others were made sick this year by a rare "flesh-eating" bacteria. Vibrio vulnificus, which is found in saltwater, brackish water and inside contaminated raw or undercooked seafood, led to four deaths in four counties across the state and made at least seven people ill, the state's Department of Health announced on July 11. Infection from the bacteria is rare, with an average of 150 to 200 cases reported each year to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cases are most often reported in the Gulf Coast states, though research has shown it migrating north as climate change fuels warmer oceans. Most healthy people exposed to the bacteria experience only mild symptoms. For some, however, the bacteria can be deadly – especially if it enters the bloodstream or kills flesh around an open wound. About one in five people die from the infection, according to the CDC, sometimes within one to two days of becoming ill. Others may require surgery or even amputation after their exposure. Here's what to know about Vibrio vulnificus: Where is Vibrio vulnificus located? Vibrio are bacteria that naturally live in coastal waters year-round. Vibrio vulnificus requires saltwater to live and spread, though it can thrive in brackish water, where a stream or river meets seawater. Most infections occur when people swallow contaminated water or get it in an open wound. Another source of infection is contaminated raw or undercooked seafood, especially shellfish such as oysters. In Florida, which leads the nation in Vibrio vulnificus infections, spikes in cases and deaths coincide with major hurricanes, when seawater is carried on shore, triggering flooding and dumping seawater into freshwater sources. Between 2016 to 2024, an average of 48 Vibrio vulnificus cases and about 11 deaths were reported annually in Florida. In 2022, when Hurricane Ian battered communities along the southwest coast, there were 74 reported cases and 17 deaths. Last year, the state recorded 82 cases and 19 deaths – a surge health officials tied to a pair of damaging hurricanes, Helene and Milton. Why is it called a 'flesh-eating bacteria'? Vibrio vulnificus kills, but does not eat tissue. The bacteria cannot penetrate unharmed skin, but can enter through an existing break. If the bacteria enters the body through a cut, scrape or wound, it can cause necrotizing fasciitis, and the flesh around the infection site could die. Those infected through wounds may require major surgery or limb amputations, according to the CDC. What are the symptoms of Vibrio vulnificus? Common symptoms of Vibrio vulnificus infection include diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting and fever, according to the CDC. When open wounds are exposed to contaminated salt or brackish water, Vibrio vulnificus can cause discoloration, swelling, skin breakdown and ulcers. The bacteria can also invade the bloodstream and threaten severe and life-threatening illnesses such as septic shock, especially for those with pre-existing conditions. "Vibrio vulnificus bloodstream infections are fatal about 50 percent of the time," according to the Florida Department of Health. How to avoid Vibrio vulnificus Below are some tips to avoid Vibrio vulnificus, according to the Florida Department of Health and the CDC. Stay out of saltwater and brackish water if you have an open wound or cut. If you get a cut while you are in the water, leave the water immediately. If your open wounds and cuts could come in contact with salt water, brackish water or raw or undercooked seafood, cover them with a waterproof bandage. Cook shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels) thoroughly. Avoid cross-contamination of cooked seafood and other foods with raw seafood and juices from raw seafood. Always wash your hands with soap and water after handling raw shellfish. Seek medical attention right away for infected wounds. Contributing: Natalie Neysa Alund, Thao Nguyen, Gabe Hauari and Mike Snider, USA TODAY; C.A. Bridges, USA TODAY Network - Florida This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Rare 'flesh-eating' bacteria kills 4 people in Florida: What to know Solve the daily Crossword

Rapid Review: Endometrial Cancer
Rapid Review: Endometrial Cancer

Medscape

time23 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Rapid Review: Endometrial Cancer

In endometrial cancer, the majority of cases are diagnosed at an early stage, largely due to the hallmark symptom of postmenopausal bleeding. Despite relatively favorable survival rates when caught early — with a 5-year relative survival rate of approximately 95% for localized disease — disparities remain in detection, treatment access, and mortality. ctDNA testing has shown strong value as a noninvasive and highly sensitive method for detecting recurrence in endometrial cancer. ctDNA detects tumor-specific mutations in the bloodstream and is being actively evaluated to track cancer progression, detect early-stage cancers, and monitor therapeutic responses. ctDNA's role for detecting hormone receptor status and tumor histology has not been established for endometrial cancer, and it appears to not be correlated with myometrial invasion depth. Learn more about the presentation of endometrial cancer. In the past year, evidence has emerged which demonstrates that GLP-1 receptor agonists — medications originally approved for diabetes and obesity — reduce the risk for obesity-related cancers. A major research effort found that these drugs decreased cancer incidence, and further research found GLP-1 receptor agonists to be comparable to bariatric surgery for obesity-related cancer prevention. GLP-1 therapies now offer a less-invasive alternative to bariatric surgery. Research is ongoing to evaluate the use of GLP-1 medications as a potential therapeutic strategy for endometrial cancer. The other classes have not been shown to reduce risk or are not used in endometrial cancer management. Learn more about the differential diagnosis for endometrial cancer. Recent advances in molecular and genomic profiling have significantly refined the precision with which therapies can be selected for patients with endometrial cancer. These tools enable clinicians to pinpoint genetic and molecular characteristics that dictate tumor behavior and response to treatment, improving personalized treatment strategies and overall survival outcomes. Rather than uniformly applying treatments, clinicians have the ability to tailor therapies based on individual molecular profiles. Adjuvant therapy may still be warranted depending on the risk associated with the molecular/genomic subtypes identified, and best practice histopathology evaluation is still needed even when advanced profiling is done. Further research continues to expand the depth and breadth of genomic profiling, making it a crucial element of modern oncology practice. Learn more about the workup for endometrial cancer. The TCGA molecular classification divides endometrial cancers into four biologically distinct subtypes: POLE-ultramutated, MSI-H, copy number-low (endometrioid), and copy number-high (serous-like). These molecular profiles provide prognostic insights and increasingly guide therapeutic strategies beyond traditional histology and staging. For example, POLE-mutated tumors, despite high mutation burdens, have excellent outcomes and may not require aggressive adjuvant therapy. In contrast, copy number-high tumors are associated with poor prognosis and may benefit from more intensive treatment and HER2-targeted therapies. This classification is part of a shift toward personalized medicine in gynecologic oncology. Learn more about guidelines for endometrial cancer. Compared to traditional open surgery, MIS dramatically shortens hospital stays, decreases blood loss, and has fewer overall complications, although it does lengthen operation time. Furthermore, minimally invasive approaches maintain oncologic outcomes comparable to those of traditional open surgery, providing reassurance regarding their safety and efficacy. Because endometrial cancer patients often have obesity, MIS has the potential to reduce the risk for postoperative wound complications. It also is likely to decrease other postoperative morbidities by supporting faster recovery and earlier resumption of normal daily activities. Additionally, lymph node assessment may still be needed after MIS. Learn more about risk assessment in patients with endometrial cancer.

Rethinking Work With AI: What Stanford's Groundbreaking Workforce Study Means For Healthcare's Future
Rethinking Work With AI: What Stanford's Groundbreaking Workforce Study Means For Healthcare's Future

Forbes

time24 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Rethinking Work With AI: What Stanford's Groundbreaking Workforce Study Means For Healthcare's Future

AI systems should reduce cognitive load, clarify ambiguity, and work alongside teams as intelligent collaborators, not as black-box disruptors. What if the AI systems you're building solve the wrong problems and alienate the workforce you're trying to support? That's the uncomfortable reality laid bare by a new research study from Stanford University. While AI pilots race ahead across administrative and clinical functions, most are still built on a flawed assumption: that automating tasks equals progress. But for the people doing the work—clinicians, care coordinators, billing specialists—that's not what they asked for. The report, Future of Work with AI Agents, offers the most granular audit yet of how worker sentiment, task complexity, and technical feasibility collide in the age of artificial intelligence. Over 1,500 U.S. workers were surveyed across 104 occupations, producing the most detailed dataset yet on where AI could, and should, fit. Their preferences were paired with ratings from 52 AI experts to create a map of the true automation and augmentation landscape. For healthcare, the findings could not come at a more urgent moment. The healthcare sector faces a burned-out workforce, escalating administrative waste, and widespread dissatisfaction with digital tools that were meant to help. A majority of physicians report that documentation burden is a leading cause of burnout, with recent studies showing U.S. physicians spend excessive time on documentation tasks. Nurse attrition has also remained a concern since the pandemic. Meanwhile, AI adoption is surging, with the vast majority of health systems piloting or planning AI integration. However, there remains a lack of consistent frameworks to align these technologies with real-world clinical and operational dynamics. The result? Misplaced investment, fractured trust, and resistance from the very people AI is meant to assist. The Stanford study confirms it: the majority of tasks that healthcare workers want automated—like documentation, claims rework, or prior auth form generation—are not where AI tools are being focused. In fact, less than 2% of those high-desire tasks are showing up in actual LLM usage today. Instead, attention and venture funding are often diverted toward automating interpersonal communication, appeals, or triage. These are areas where trust, nuance, and empathy matter most. This is more than a technical oversight. It's a strategic miscalculation. This study clarifies that the future of AI in healthcare isn't about replacing human judgment—it's about protecting it. Leaders must pivot from automation-at-any-cost to augmentation-by-design. That means building AI systems that reduce cognitive load, clarify ambiguity, and work alongside teams as intelligent collaborators, not as black-box disruptors. And, most critically, it means listening to the workforce before you deploy. A New Lens on Work: Automation Desire vs. Technical Feasibility Stanford's framework introduces two powerful filters for every task: what workers want automated and what AI can do. This produces a four-quadrant map: This approach is especially revealing in healthcare, where: Critically, 69% of workers said their top reason for wanting AI was to free up time for higher-value work. Only 12% wanted AI to fully take over a task. The takeaway? Augmentation, not replacement. Green Light (Automate Now): R&D Opportunity (Invest in Next-Gen AI): Red Light (Approach with Caution): Y Combinator is one of the world's most influential startup accelerators, known for launching and funding early-stage technology companies, including many that shape the future of artificial intelligence. Its relevance in this context comes from its outsized role in setting trends and priorities for the tech industry: the types of problems YC-backed startups pursue often signal where talent, investment, and innovation are headed. The Stanford study highlights a striking disconnect between these startup priorities and actual workforce needs. Specifically, it found that 41% of Y Combinator-backed AI startups are developing solutions for tasks that workers have little interest in automating—referred to as 'Red Light Zones' or low-priority areas. This reveals a substantial missed opportunity: if leading accelerators like Y Combinator better aligned their focus with the real needs and preferences of the workforce, AI innovation could deliver far greater value and acceptance in the workplace. The Human Agency Scale: AI as a Teammate To move beyond binary thinking (automate vs. don't), the Stanford research team introduces a more nuanced framework: the Human Agency Scale (HAS). This five-tier model offers a conceptual scaffold for evaluating how AI agents should integrate into human workflows. Rather than asking whether a task should be automated, the HAS asks to what extent the human remains in control, how decision-making is shared, and what level of oversight is required. The scale ranges from H1 to H5, as follows: The Stanford study reveals a clear pattern across occupations: the majority of workers—particularly in healthcare—prefer H2 or H3. Specifically, 45.2% of tasks analyzed across all industries favor an H3 arrangement, in which AI acts as a collaborative peer. In healthcare contexts—where judgment, empathy, and contextual nuance are foundational—H3 is even more critical. In roles such as care coordination, utilization review, and social work, tasks often require a mix of real-time decision-making, human empathy, and risk stratification. A system built for full automation (H5) in these contexts would not only be resisted—it would likely produce unsafe or ethically problematic outcomes. Instead, what's required are AI agents that can surface relevant information, adapt to the evolving contours of a task, and remain responsive to human steering. John Halamka, President of Mayo Clinic Platform, reinforced this collaborative mindset in February 2025: 'We have to use AI,' he said, noting that ambient listening tools represent 'the thing that will solve many business problems' with relatively low risk. He cited Mayo's inpatient ambient nursing solutions, which handle '100% of the nursing charting without the nurse having to touch a keyboard,' but was clear that these tools are 'all augmenting human behavior and not replacing the human.' These insights echo a broader workforce trend: automation without agency is unlikely to succeed. Clinical leaders don't want AI to dictate care pathways or handle nuanced appeals independently. They want AI that reduces friction, illuminates blind spots, and extends their cognitive reach, without erasing professional identity or judgment. As such, designing for HAS Level 3 (equal partnership) is emerging as the gold standard for intelligent systems in healthcare. This model balances speed and efficiency with explainability and oversight. It also offers a governance and performance evaluation framework that prioritizes human trust. Building AI for HAS Level 3 requires features that go beyond prediction accuracy. Systems must be architected with: Healthcare doesn't need one-size-fits-all automation. It requires collaboration at scale, grounded in transparency and guided by human expertise. These perspectives align perfectly with the Stanford findings: workers don't fear AI—they fear being sidelined by it. The solution isn't to slow down AI development. It's to direct it with clarity, co-design it with the people who rely on it, and evaluate it not just by outputs but also by the experience and empowerment it delivers to human professionals. The true ROI of AI is trust, relief, and time reclaimed. Outcomes like 'claims processed' or 'notes generated' aren't enough. Metrics should track cognitive load reduced, time returned to patient care, and worker trust in AI recommendations. While throughput remains a necessary benchmark, these human-centered outcomes provide the clearest signal of whether AI improves the healthcare experience. Measurement frameworks must be longitudinal, capturing not just initial productivity but long-term operational resilience, clinician satisfaction, and sustainable value. Only then can we ensure that AI fulfills its promise to elevate both performance and purpose in healthcare. Dr. Rohit Chandra, Chief Digital Officer at Cleveland Clinic, gave voice to this idea in June 2025: 'It's made their jobs a ton easier. Patient interactions are a lot better because now patients actually engage with the doctor,' he said, referring to 4,000 physicians now using AI scribes. 'I'm hoping that we can keep building on the success that we've had so far to literally drive the documentation burden to zero.' Build With, Not For This moment is too important for misalignment. The Stanford study offers a blueprint. For healthcare leaders, the message is clear: If you want AI to scale, build with the workforce in mind. Prioritize the Green Light Zones. Invest in agentic systems that enhance, not override. Govern AI like a trusted partner, not a productivity engine. The future of AI in healthcare won't be determined by the size of your model. It will be defined by the quality of your teaming.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store