The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sex-can you get it right?
Abstract
Neonatologists often get the sex of their patients wrong. A review of the literature on identifying sex from facial appearances yielded one small study from Nashville, Tennessee.1 The low level of success (60%) found by the study suggests either that sex specific characteristics are inconsistent or that adults do not notice them. We wondered whether newborn babies' sex could be determined from their facial characteristics; whether particular facial characteristics, such as delicacy, were associated with the attribution of sex; and whether adults' degree of contact with neonates increased accuracy. The study was approved by the research and ethics committee at Guy's Hospital. Thirty babies born at term were enrolled consecutively on the postnatal ward at Guy's Hospital. Unwell babies and babies who were not fully Afro-Caribbean or white were excluded. The babies were wrapped, with the face left exposed, and photographed. Eight photographs of Afro-Caribbean babies and 16 of white babies …
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Adult participants were able to categorise the sex of neonates at levels above chance.
“adult participants were able to categorise the sex of neonates (Kaminski et al., 2011; Porter, Cernoch & Balogh, 1984; Round & Deheragoda, 2002) and 1–24 month old infants (Tskhay & Rule, 2016) at levels above chance”
From Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children (2018) · cites this paper as Round & Deheragoda, 2002
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Porter, 1984, Recognition of neonates by facial-visual characteristics, Pediatrics, 74, 501, 10.1542/peds.74.4.501 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unfamiliar face matching with photographs of infants and children
Kramer, R. S. S., Mulgrew, J., & Reynolds, M. G. (2018) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.5010 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Round, J. E. C., & Deheragoda, M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-12-21
- Volume
- 325
- Issue
- 7378
- Pages
- 1446-1447
- ISSN
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review