ArticleJournal of anatomy2025
Data-driven standards for infant skull thickness distributions in computational modeling and analysis.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 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.
- Calvarial Bloom Biomechanics: Dural Tension Governing Cranial Form.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Data-driven standards for infant skull thickness distributions in computational modeling and analysis.Journal of anatomy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Child abuse remains a global issue, with infants under 1 year of age facing the highest risk of fatality and recurrence if abuse is not detected. Computational modeling is a powerful tool for predicting injury from real-world trauma, offering a means to validate caretaker-reported histories and prevent further abuse. A key challenge and gap, however, lies in capturing the natural anatomical variability within a population to enhance injury prediction accuracy. This study addresses this gap by quantifying skull thickness distributions in a robust sample (n = 266) and establishing data-driven anatomical standards based on similarities in thickness patterns. The study examined age and head circumference as predictors of skull thickness growth. For infants younger than 2.5 months, head circumference was a more reliable predictor than age. Infants under 12 months old were categorized into four age groups-0-1.5, 1.5-5.9, 5.9-10.2, and 10.2-12 months-using natural thickness distribution breaks and a variance optimization routine. No significant sex differences were found in average skull thickness within each cranial bone (left and right parietal, frontal, and occipital), but there were 53 locations with significant sex differences at various stages of development. Symmetry tests suggested that lateral symmetry may be an appropriate assumption for infants under 12 months. Representative thickness distributions for each age group were selected based on similarity scores. This study is the first to apply data-driven methods to categorize infant skull thickness distributions, generating essential guidelines for age- and sex-based models in predicting injury from head trauma in infants.
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.