ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025
Correlations of facial soft tissue thicknesses with craniometric dimensions improve craniofacial identification estimates: Fact or fiction?
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the contribution of orthodontic profiles in predicting facial soft tissue thickness for forensic facial approximation.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Correlations of facial soft tissue thicknesses with craniometric dimensions improve craniofacial identification estimates: Fact or fiction?Journal of forensic sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Linear regression (LR) models that use cranial dimensions to estimate facial soft tissue thicknesses (FSTTs) have been posited by Simpson and Henneberg to assist craniofacial identification. For these regression equations to work well, the independent (craniometrics) and dependent (FSTTs) variables must be tightly correlated; however, such relationships have not been routinely demonstrated for adult humans. To examine the strength of these relationships further, this study employed magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to unambiguously measure cranial dimensions and FSTTs for 38 adult cadavers. This contrasts with prior published use of (a) spreading calipers to compress the face in an attempt to measure cranial dimensions through the soft tissues of the head and (b) needle puncture to measure the FSTT (a + b = legacy methods). To provide direct comparisons to prior work, this study also conducted legacy measurements for reproducibility tests. Previously published LR models were not supported by either the legacy or MR data. In the MR data, correlations between the cranial dimensions and FSTTs were generally weak with a mean absolute r = 0.13 and r range = -0.40 to 0.33. Compared to previously published arithmetic means, LR models did not improve FSTT estimates in the MR sample (SEE for LR = 5.5 mm; SEE for arithmetic mean = 5.2 mm). Using the latest MR imaging technologies, these results underscore prior warnings that cranial dimensions hold weak correlations with FSTTs and possess limited utility for improved FSTT estimation over and/or above arithmetic means.
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.