MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055411301 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.20892

Digit ratios (2D:4D) determined by computer‐assisted analysis are more reliable than those using physical measurements, photocopies, and printed scans

2009· article· en· W2055411301 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather C. M. Allaway, Terri G. Bloski, Roger A. Pierson, Marla E. Lujan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNumerical digitHumComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMedicineMathematicsArithmeticArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prenatal androgens influence the second to fourth digit ratio (2D:4D) of hands with men having lower ratios than women. Numerous methods are used to assess 2D:4D including, physical measurements with calipers, and measurements made from photocopies, scanned images, digital photographs, radiographs, and scaled tubes. Although each method appears relatively reliable, agreement upon a gold standard is necessary to better explore the putative effects of prenatal androgens. Our objective was to assess the level of intra and interobserver reliability when evaluating 2D:4D using four techniques: (1) physical measurements, (2) photocopies, (3) printed scanned images, and (4) computer-assisted image analysis. Physical measurements, photocopies, and printed scanned images were measured with Vernier calipers. Scanned images were also measured with computer-based calipers. Measurements were made in 30 men and 30 women at two different time points, by three experienced observers. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess the level of reliability. Intraobserver reliability was best for computer-assisted (0.957), followed by photocopies (0.939), physical measurements (0.925), and printed scans (0.842; P = 0.015). Interobserver reliability was also greatest for computer-assisted (0.892), followed by photocopies (0.858), physical measurements (0.795), and printed scans (0.761; P = 0.001). Mean 2D:4D from physical measurements were higher than all other techniques (P < 0.0001). Digit ratios determined from computer-assisted, physical measurements, and printed scans were more reliable in men than women (P = 0.009, P = 0.017, and P = 0.012, respectively). In summary, 2D:4D determined from computer-assisted analysis yielded the most accurate and consistent measurements among observers. Investigations of 2D:4D should use computer-assisted measurements over alternate methods whenever possible.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations119
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207