ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2025
Assessing Virtual Anthropometric Measurements and Quantifying Their Relationship to Osteometric Measurements Using Computed Tomography Scans From an Online Database.
Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 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.
- Upper Arm to Upper Leg Length Ratio and Dyslipidemia: A Novel Application of a Fixed Skeletal Proportion Metric in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Assessing Virtual Anthropometric Measurements and Quantifying Their Relationship to Osteometric Measurements Using Computed Tomography Scans From an Online Database.American journal of biological anthropology · 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
objectivesAnthropometrics are a powerful tool for understanding bodily diversity. Using computed tomography (CT) scans from the New Mexico Decedent Image Database, we assess sources of methodological error that may complicate virtual anthropometric methods and quantify the comparability of anthropometric and osteometric measures. MATERIALS AND
methodsStandard measurement protocols were adapted for virtual measurement. Intra- and interobserver measurement error, and error from changing CT scan thresholds were evaluated. Relationships between anthropometric and osteometric correlates were then evaluated using pairwise Fligner-Killeen tests on coefficients of variation (CVs). Biological codependence was explored using reduced major axis (RMA) regressions.
resultsMeasurement and threshold errors were low. Breadth and circumferential measures had the largest measurement errors and were most impacted by different threshold choices. Linear measurements show no significant differences between anthropometric and osteometric definitions, while circumferential measures have significantly different CVs for the male (p = 0.02) and pooled groups (p = 0.01). Bi-iliocristal and bi-iliac breadths had significantly different CVs, except in the < 25 BMI group. RMA models reflect a positive linear relationship between paired measures that is stronger for linear (r ≥ 0.98) than circumferential (r = 0.82) measurements. Pelvic breadth shows the weakest relationship (r = 0.46).
conclusionsAnthropometric measures can be precisely defined in a replicable manner in virtual spaces, and linear measurements taken osteologically are comparable to those taken anthropometrically. However, circumferential measures are more impacted by threshold choice and soft tissue variation than linear measurements. Anthropometrically and osteometrically defined circumferential correlates should be compared with caution. Pelvic breadth measurements may only be comparable in individuals with BMIs < 25.
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.