ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2024
Exploratory analysis of new craniometric measures for the investigation of biological sex using open-access statistical and machine-learning tools on a cone-beam computed tomography sample.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in forensic science: a systematic review. Part I: personal identification.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Triticeal cartilage in forensic anthropological investigations: sex and stature estimation with a machine learning approach.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Sex Determination Using Linear Anthropometric Measurements Relative to the Mandibular Reference Plane on CBCT 3D Images.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Investigation of the biological sex of human remains is a crucial aspect of physical anthropology. However, due to varying states of skeletal preservation, multiple approaches and structures of interest need to be explored. This research aims to investigate the potential use of distances between bifrontal breadth (FMB), infraorbital foramina distance (IOD), nasal breadth (NLB), inter-canine width (ICD), and distance between mental foramina (MFD) for combined sex prediction through traditional statistical methods and through open-access machine-learning tools. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee, and out of 100 cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, 54 individuals were selected with all the points visible. Ten extra exams were chosen to test the predictors developed from the learning sample. Descriptive analysis of measurements, standard deviation, and standard error were obtained. T-student and Mann-Whitney tests were utilized to assess the sex differences within the variables. A logistic regression equation was developed and tested for the investigation of the biological sex as well as decision trees, random forest, and artificial neural networks machine-learning models. The results indicate a strong correlation between the measurements and the sex of individuals. When combined, the measurements were able to predict sex using a regression formula or machine learning based models which can be exported and added to software or webpages. Considering the methods, the estimations showed an accuracy rate superior to 80% for males and 82% for females. All skulls in the test sample were accurately predicted by both statistical and machine-learning models. This exploratory study successfully established a correlation between facial measurements and the sex of individuals, validating the prediction potential of machine learning, augmenting the investigative tools available to experts with a high differentiation potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38856752What 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.