ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Craniometric evaluation of population affinity among South African subadults.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although standard craniometrics is typically regarded as the method of choice for estimating population affinity in adults, its application to subadults has received limited attention, despite potential population-specific signals demonstrated in cranial growth patterns. This study evaluated the potential efficacy of interlandmark distances (ILDs) derived from three-dimensional (3D) cranial models obtained from Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scans of South African black, coloured, indian and white subadults, and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to estimate population affinity. Results indicated that the combined midface and cranial base model contained the most population-specific variation, with black South Africans achieving the highest classification accuracy. The best-performing multivariate model achieved a 79.17% accuracy and a kappa of 0.67. Age-stratified models produced slightly lower classification rates, suggesting that early ontogenetic trajectories during childhood may obscure population differences. Indian South Africans were consistently misclassified across all models, likely reflecting both challenges posed by limited sample size and substantial heterogeneity and overlap with other groups. While age had a limited influence on the predictive performance, ILDs show considerable promise for subadult classification, particularly when combining measurements from the facial skeleton and cranial base. These findings indicate that population-specific craniofacial variation is detectable across subadult development and that incorporating the full developmental sample may yield more accurate classifications than age-stratified approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42768213What 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.