ArticleInternational journal of cosmetic science2021
Differences between perceived age and chronological age in women: A multi-ethnic and multi-centre study.
Article in International journal of cosmetic science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of under-eye skin and crow's feet on perceived facial appearance in women of five ethnic groups.International journal of cosmetic science · 2025Article
- Identification of gene-sun exposure interactions of GWAS-identified variants in perceived facial aging progression.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- Validation of the death reflection scale among older people.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Facial Rejuvenation: A Global Trend of Dermatological Procedures in the Last Decade.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Colour information biases facial age estimation and reduces inter-observer variability.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The Characteristics of the Skin Physiological Parameters and Facial Microbiome of "Ideal Skin" in Shanghai Women.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023Article
- Differences between perceived age and chronological age in women: A multi-ethnic and multi-centre study.International journal of cosmetic science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAccuracy in assessing age from facial cues is important in social perception given reports of strong negative correlations between perceived age and assessments of health and attractiveness. In a multi-ethnic and multi-centre study, we previously documented similar patterns of female facial age assessments across ethnicities, influenced by gender and ethnicity of assessors.
methodsHere we extend these findings by examining differences between estimated age from digital portraits and chronological age (Δ age) for 180 women from three age groups (20-34, 35-49, 50-66 years) and five ethnicities (36 images of each ethnicity, assessed for age on a continuous scale by 120 female and male raters of each ethnicity).
resultsAcross ethnicities, Δ age was smallest in French assessors and largest in South African assessors. Numerically, French women were judged oldest and Chinese women youngest relative to chronological age. In younger women, Δ age was larger than in middle-aged and older women. This effect was particularly evident when considering the interaction of women's age with assessor gender and ethnicity, independently and together, on Δ age.
conclusionCollectively, our findings suggest that accuracy in assessments of female age from digital portraits depends on the chronological age and ethnicity of the photographed women and the ethnicity and gender of the assessor. We discuss the findings concerning ethnic variation in skin pigmentation and visible signs of ageing and comment on implications for cosmetic science.
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.