ArticleScientific reports2024
Human gender estimation from CT images of skull using deep feature selection and feature fusion.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep learning-based sex estimation from multi-planar cranial CT images in a Thai population.Anatomical science international · 2026Article
- Paranasal Sinus Morphometry for Forensic Sex Estimation: A Computed Tomography Study of 499 Individuals with a Cross-Validated, Transparently Reported Machine Learning Model.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploratory Machine Learning-Based Classification of Type 2 Diabetes Using Routine Clinical Parameters: A Single-Center Comparative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Automated skull orientation classification in Thai population using CNN-based transfer learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Detection of common bile duct dilatation on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography by deep learning.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Deep learning for gender estimation using hand radiographs: a comparative evaluation of CNN models.BMC medical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research endeavors to prognosticate gender by harnessing the potential of skull computed tomography (CT) images, given the seminal role of gender identification in the realm of identification. The study encompasses a corpus of CT images of cranial structures derived from 218 male and 203 female subjects, constituting a total cohort of 421 individuals within the age bracket of 25 to 65 years. Employing deep learning, a prominent subset of machine learning algorithms, the study deploys convolutional neural network (CNN) models to excavate profound attributes inherent in the skull CT images. In pursuit of the research objective, the focal methodology involves the exclusive application of deep learning algorithms to image datasets, culminating in an accuracy rate of 96.4%. The gender estimation process exhibits a precision of 96.1% for male individuals and 96.8% for female individuals. The precision performance varies across different selections of feature numbers, namely 100, 300, and 500, alongside 1000 features without feature selection. The respective precision rates for these selections are recorded as 95.0%, 95.5%, 96.2%, and 96.4%. It is notable that gender estimation via visual radiography mitigates the discrepancy in measurements between experts, concurrently yielding an expedited estimation rate. Predicated on the empirical findings of this investigation, it is inferred that the efficacy of the CNN model, the configurational intricacies of the classifier, and the judicious selection of features collectively constitute pivotal determinants in shaping the performance attributes of the proposed methodology.
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.