Cited by 5

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sex-can you get it right?

Round, Jonathan E C, Deheragoda, Maesha·2002·BMJ

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

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.325.7378.1446

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

  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

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