ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Nose-skull relationships for craniofacial identification: computed tomography (CT) assessment of nose width, nasal bridge shape & pronasale position.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nose is one of the primary facial features assessed from skulls when undertaking craniofacial identification. While several nose estimators have been published, out-of-group tests are relatively few. In this study, we use high-resolution CT scans and a pool of 92 Australian adults to assess three previously published nose estimation models: (1) nose width estimated from the maximum width of the nasal aperture; (2) nasal tip curve (inferior oblique view) estimated from the superior nasal aperture shape; and (3) pronasale position estimated from two-tangents according to recent revisions. Tests of Method 1 in 63 subjects reveal standard errors of the estimate (SEE) of 4.0 mm. Tests of Method 2 in 31 carefully screened subjects produced a Procrustes distance (d) of 0.24. Tests of Method 3 in 43 subjects, yielded a SEE of 10 mm for Euclidean distances between the estimated and ground truth pronasale position. Cartesian coordinate error (x/y) for the latter method, revealed pronasale was placed too far antero-inferiorly in most subjects (x = +2.2 mm and y = -6.2 mm). These results indicate that current published nose estimation models often yield noses with substantially incorrect dimensions for all three factors: nose width, nose tip curve and position of the nose tip. To improve the established methods, we propose a correction factor (sign-reversed mean error) that delivers a calibration-in-the-large for the estimation models helping to increase their accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42726214What 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.