ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2026
Cranial Modularity and Integration in Modern Humans: Evidence for Regional Variability and Evolutionary Flexibility.
Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examines the modular organization of the human skull and variation in cranial integration across Eurasian populations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study analyzed 450 male crania from 10 Eurasian populations using 35 craniometric variables. Correlation matrices were constructed and evaluated using EMMLi analysis and the covariance ratio (CR) to test alternative modularity models, while two-block partial least squares (2B-PLS) analysis was used to estimate the strength of cranial integration.
resultsEMMLi and CR analyses supported a highly modular organization of the human skull, with generally weak correlations within and between cranial modules. Viscerocranial modules showed stronger internal integration than neurocranial modules. Asian populations displayed weaker intermodular correlations, especially in the orbital and zygomatic regions, suggesting greater independence of these traits. The Khanty sample occupied an intermediate position between major macroregional groups. Increased cranial integration was observed in island and peripheral populations. DISCUSSION: The findings indicate that weak integration among cranial modules may increase the potential for craniofacial variation in humans. Reduced integration of orbital and zygomatic modules in North Asian populations may reflect climatic adaptation and/or high population mobility. Lower modularity in island populations may result from stronger genetic drift or stabilizing selection, whereas increased modularity may reflect directional selection.
conclusionCranial modularity varies not only among species but also among modern human populations, reflecting microevolutionary processes and environmental influences on morphological diversity.
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.