Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study

Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119" }, "headline": "Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature...", "datePublished": "2025-01-22T12:54:07", "dateModified": "2025-05-15T11:07:16", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Shwetha Acharya" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Chandni Gupta" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Vikram Palimar" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Sneha Guruprasad Kalthur" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Purnima Adhikari" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The human ear is unique to individuals, and ear prints, like fingerprints, are discrete enough to distinguish identical twins. Thus, this study aimed to estimate the stature and sex using various morphometric parameters and morphological features of the external ear for forensic identification. Methods This was a cross-sectional observational study involving 40 participants recruited using simple random sampling technique. Eighteen measurements were taken, and various morphological features were noted for both the right and left ears. A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all linear parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. Normal distribution was verified using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For normally distributed parameters, an independent t-test was used, and for non-normally distributed parameters, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare sexes. To compare the right and left parameters, independent t-tests (for normally distributed data) and Mann-Whitney U tests (for non-normally distributed data) were applied. Sex determination and stature estimation were performed using logistic regression analysis. Results In males and females, the most common shape was oval (47.5%), and the ear lobe was free (45%). When comparing the parameters of males on the right and left sides, it was noticed that only the ear inclination angle and concha mastoid angle showed significant differences (p < 0.05). It was seen that the right lobe width showed perfect separation, indicating its potential as an extremely reliable predictor of sex. It was noted that in females, the strongest correlation with height was with the ear inclination angle on both sides. Conclusion We can conclude from the results of this study that the right lobe width of external ear can be a reliable predictor of sex. Ear inclination angle on both sides showed strongest correlation with height. The results of this study can help forensic anthropologists identify the sex and stature of a person from various ear measurements in young South Indian adults. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3", "name": "Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with..." } } ] } Home Browse Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Acharya S, Gupta C, Palimar V et al. Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Previously titled: Morphology And Morphometry of Human External Ear with Its Significance in Sex Determination and Stature Estimation - An Observational Study Shwetha Acharya 1 , Chandni Gupta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9232-0946 1 , Vikram Palimar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5258-1992 2 , Sneha Guruprasad Kalthur 1 , Purnima Adhikari 1 Shwetha Acharya 1 , Chandni Gupta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9232-0946 1 , [...] Vikram Palimar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5258-1992 2 , Sneha Guruprasad Kalthur 1 , Purnima Adhikari 1 PUBLISHED 15 May 2025 Author details Author details 1 Department of Anatomy, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India 2 Department of Forensic Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India Shwetha Acharya Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Chandni Gupta Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Vikram Palimar Roles: Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Sneha Guruprasad Kalthur Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – Review & Editing Purnima Adhikari Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway. Abstract Background The human ear is unique to individuals, and ear prints, like fingerprints, are discrete enough to distinguish identical twins. Thus, this study aimed to estimate the stature and sex using various morphometric parameters and morphological features of the external ear for forensic identification. Methods This was a cross-sectional observational study involving 40 participants recruited using simple random sampling technique. Eighteen measurements were taken, and various morphological features were noted for both the right and left ears. A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all linear parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. Normal distribution was verified using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For normally distributed parameters, an independent t-test was used, and for non-normally distributed parameters, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare sexes. To compare the right and left parameters, independent t-tests (for normally distributed data) and Mann-Whitney U tests (for non-normally distributed data) were applied. Sex determination and stature estimation were performed using logistic regression analysis. Results In males and females, the most common shape was oval (47.5%), and the ear lobe was free (45%). When comparing the parameters of males on the right and left sides, it was noticed that only the ear inclination angle and concha mastoid angle showed significant differences (p < 0.05). It was seen that the right lobe width showed perfect separation, indicating its potential as an extremely reliable predictor of sex. It was noted that in females, the strongest correlation with height was with the ear inclination angle on both sides. Conclusion We can conclude from the results of this study that the right lobe width of external ear can be a reliable predictor of sex. Ear inclination angle on both sides showed strongest correlation with height. The results of this study can help forensic anthropologists identify the sex and stature of a person from various ear measurements in young South Indian adults. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Morphology, Morphometry, Sex, External Ear, Regression Equation, Stature Corresponding Author(s) Chandni Gupta ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Chandni Gupta Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2025 Acharya S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Acharya S, Gupta C, Palimar V et al. Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.3 ) First published: 22 Jan 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.1 ) Latest published: 15 May 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.3 ) Revised Amendments from Version 2 We have emphasized that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults in the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion. We have state in limitations that due to small sample size results are preliminary and exploratory, and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors. We have included a ROC curve as Figure 5 to show logistic regression analysis of ear morphometric predictors for gender. Minor Revisions: We have done a light grammar across the manuscript. We have deleted the Duplicate or Misplaced Text and formatted the test for the statistical table text Figures 1–4 we have added more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own. We have added 3 more publications in the references after 2020. We have added the landmarks in the images. We have added the values of males and females measurement in table 4. We have changed the title of the study to “Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study” Added some quantitative data in the results in abstract. Added which specific measurements were most useful in our study in Conclusion also. We have emphasized that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults in the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion. We have state in limitations that due to small sample size results are preliminary and exploratory, and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors. We have included a ROC curve as Figure 5 to show logistic regression analysis of ear morphometric predictors for gender. Minor Revisions: We have done a light grammar across the manuscript. We have deleted the Duplicate or Misplaced Text and formatted the test for the statistical table text Figures 1–4 we have added more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own. We have added 3 more publications in the references after 2020. We have added the landmarks in the images. We have added the values of males and females measurement in table 4. We have changed the title of the study to “Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study” Added some quantitative data in the results in abstract. Added which specific measurements were most useful in our study in Conclusion also. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Adil Asghar See the authors' detailed response to the review by Nurdan Sezgin See the authors' detailed response to the review by Anyanwu Godson Emeka READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Personal identification implies a determination of individualism established on specified morphological criteria that are distinctive to that person. In the circumstance of skeletal remnants, identification is very complex and needs precise investigation of these remnants. 1 Human beings present a wide range of variations which are distinctive and facilitate differentiating a person from another. 2 In addition to DNA profiling, several morphological traits and biometric parameters have been used in forensic analyses to differentiate one individual from another. Certain structural attributes used for this purpose include fingerprints, facial traits, footprints and external ear. 3 – 5 As earprints, like fingerprints, are distinct enough, even the human ear can be used to recognize identical twins as it is unique to individuals. 6 – 8 The external ear is the most definitive feature of the human face, also referred to as the pinna or auricle. 2 Many forensic anthropologists revealed that auricle plays a vital role in identification of gender, stature, age and ethnicity. 9 Additionally, the shape, location and measurement of the auricle are specific to everyone same as the fingerprint thus assisting its utilization in forensics. 2 Frequently, during a crime scene investigation ear inscriptions are typically found on gates and windows where a possible criminal has been hearing for likely assault. Therefore, such spots are gathered and assessed using saved records to determine a match with the accused. Therefore, earprints provide valuable forensic evidence. 10 When an accused person wears protective hand gloves, his fingerprints will not be available during those cases, and ear morphology and biometrics are frequently used. 11 Ear morphology and morphometry are more important than typical biometric attributes such as facial recognition because they are rarely affected by aging. However, it is not affected by the facial expression alterations. In addition, there is no effect of anxiety on the ear as it can happen in other traits such as the retina and the iris. 12 , 13 Hence, the ear is used widely as a forensic tool for individual identification purposes because of its permanency and distinctiveness in persons after birth to maturity. 14 It has been found that sex can be identified by ear measurements with up to 69.3% precision in male individuals and 72% in females. 9 Previous studies have shown that estimation of stature and sexual dimorphism can be done using morphologic parameters of the ear like ear length, width, ear lobular length and width. 15 , 16 Very few studies have been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population. Therefore, this study was conducted to estimate stature, assess sexual dimorphism, and racial specificity based on the morphometry and morphology of the external ear in the South Indian population and to derive a regression equation to predict sex and stature estimation for forensic identification. Methods Study type: Observational study Institutional ethical approval was obtained from the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee on 31 st May 31, 2024, before starting the research. (IEC NO – IEC2 – 113/2024). Written informed consent was obtained from the participants before collecting their data and for publication of their images as per the informed consent form template obtained from the ‘Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee.’ We used the STROBE Reporting Guidelines for our study; a complete checklist is available under the Reporting Guidelines. 17 Study Period: The current research was carried out from June 2024 to October 2024. Study location: Department of Anatomy. Sample Size: 40 (sample size computation using effect size, d = 0.5; significance level = 0.05; power = 0.8; sample size, n = 40; i.e., 20 males and 20 females). Study population: 18-25yrs. Inclusion criteria: • Subjects without any ear deformity. • Only young individuals of 18-25 yrs were included. Exclusion criteria: • Subjects having ear deformity. • Subjects below 18 and above 25 were eliminated from the research. Detailed description of procedure/processes: Measurements were taken with the subject’s head in the Frankfort horizontal plane. The following measurements were taken: ( Figures 1 and 2 ). Figure 1. Linear measurements done on the ear - A. Ear length and width, lobule height and width, morphological ear length, tragus length, concha length and width. B. Helical mastoid distal length and thickness of ear lobe. Figure 2. Angular measurements done on the ear - A. Auricular inclination angle. B. Concha mastoid angle. C. Antihelical take-off angle. 1) Ear length: It was determined as the distance between the most dependent part of the lobule to the superior end of the auricle. 2) Ear Width: It was determined as the distance between the root of the ear to the helix where concavity is maximum. 3) Lobule height: It was measured as the distance from the intertragic notch to the most dependent part of the lobule. 4) Lobule width: It was determined as the maximal distance across the lobule taken transversely. 5) Concha length: It was determined as the distance from the intertragic notch to the superior aspect of the concha. 6) Concha width: It was determined as the distance from point where helix concavity is maximum to the posterior aspect of tragus. 7) Tragus length: Length between intertragic notch to tragion. 8) Morphological ear length: It was determined as the straight distance between the otobasion superior and the otobasion inferior. 9) Helical mastoid distal length: the distance from the mastoid process to the helix rim at the most posterior level of the superior auricular rim. 10) Thickness of ear lobe. 11) Auricular inclination angle: The angle measured between the length of the ear and the vertical. 12) Antihelical take off angle: The angle measured as the antihelix projects from the concha bowl. 13) Concha mastoid angle: The angle measured between the mastoid process and the concha bowl. 14) Auricular index = ear width ÷ ear length × 100. 15) Lobular index = lobular width ÷ lobular length × 100. 16) Concha index = concha width ÷ concha length × 100. 17) Ear attachment length index = morphological ear length ÷ ear length × 100. 18) Conchal bowl depth. Tools used: A digital Vernier caliper with a precision of 0.001 mm was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. To avoid intra- and inter-observer bias, each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers, and its average was recorded afterwards. In addition to these morphometric measurements various morphological parameters were also noted down: 1. Ear Shape: Round, oval, triangular and rectangular. 2. Attachment of ear lobe: free, partially attached and fully attached. 3. Shape of ear lobe: arch, square, tongue and triangular. 4. Form of helix: rolled, wide, flat and concave marginal. 5. Shape of ear tragus: knob, round and long. 6. Shape of Darwin’s tubercle: projected, enlarged and nodosity. Statistical analysis The data were evaluated using Jamovi 2.4 computer software. 18 Normal distribution was verified using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For normally distributed parameters, an independent t-test was used, and for non-normally distributed parameters, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare sexes. To compare the right and left parameters, independent t-tests (for normally distributed data) and Mann-Whitney U tests (for non-normally distributed data) were applied. Sex determination and stature estimation were performed using logistic regression analysis. Underlying data is included in the Underlying Data section. 19 Results Morphological parameters Ear shape In males, the most common shape was oval in 10 (50%), followed by triangular in 5 (25%), round in 3 (15%), and rectangular in 2 (10%). In females, the most common shape was oval 9 (45%), followed by triangular 5 (25%), round 4 (20%) and rectangular 2 (10%) ( Figure 3 ). Figure 3. A. Shapes of the ear - Rectangular, triangular, oval and round. B. Attachments of ear lobe- Fully attached, partially attached and free. C. Shapes of ear tragus- Knob shaped, round and long. Attachment of ear lobe In males, the most common ear lobe was free in 10 cases (50%), followed by partially attached in 7 (35%), and fully attached in 3 (15%) cases. In females, the most common ear lobe was free in 8 cases (40%), followed by partially attached and fully attached in 6 (30% each) cases ( Figure 3 ). Shape of ear lobe In males, the most common shape was arched 10 (50%), followed by triangular 6 (30%), square 3 (15%), and tongue-shaped 1 (5%). In females, the most common shape was triangular (n = 7, 35%), followed by arched (n = 6, 30%), square (n = 5; 25%), and tongue-shaped (n = 2; 10%) ( Figure 4 ). Figure 4. A. Shapes of ear lobe- Arched, square, tongue shaped and triangular. B. Forms of helix- Concave marginal, wide, rolled and flat. C. Shapes of Darwin’s tubercle- Nodosity, enlarged and projected. Form of helix In males most common form of helix was concave marginal 9 (45%), followed by wide 5 (25%), flat and rolled 3 (15% each). In females most common form of helix was concave marginal 7 (35%), followed by flat 5 (25%), wide and rolled 4 (20% each) ( Figure 4 ). Shape of ear tragus In males, the most common tragus was round 12 (60%), followed by 5 (25%), and 3 (15%). In females, the most common shape of the tragus was long 9 (45%), followed by round 7 (35%), and knob shaped 4 (20%) ( Figure 3 ). Shape of Darwin’s tubercle In males, the most common shape of Darwin’s tubercle was enlarged by 10 (50%), followed by projected 8 (40%) and nodosity 2 (10%). In females, the most common shape of Darwin’s tubercle was enlarged in nine (45%), followed by projected seven (35%), and nodosity in four (20%) cases ( Figure 4 ). Morphometric parameters Comparing the parameters on the right and left sides, it was noticed that lobe height (p-value-0.038), ear inclination angle (p-value-0.002), antihelical takeoff angle (p-value-0.045), and concha mastoid angle (p-value-0.011) showed significant differences (p-value <0.05). The other parameters were not statistically significant. Table 1. Descriptive statistics of right and left side with their comparison using Mann-Whitney test (non-normally distributed data) and independent T Test (normally distributed data). Parameters Mean ± SD P value Ear length (mm) Right 63.2 ± 7.86 0.381 Left 62.3 ± 7.77 Ear width (mm) Right 30.0 ± 2.85 0.411 Left 29.4 ± 3.05 Lobe height (mm) Right 25.2 ± 2.20 0.038 * Left 24.2 ± 2.37 Lobe width (mm) Right 21.8 ± 4.21 0.758 Left 21.6 ± 4.08 Concha length (mm) Right 14.5 ± 2.30 0.881 Left 14.5 ± 2.12 Concha width (mm) Right 14.0 ± 1.78 0.860 Left 14.0 ± 1.82 Morphological ear length (mm) Right 32.4 ± 2.78 0.299 Left 31.8 ± 2.17 Concha bowl depth (mm) Right 11.3 ± 1.98 0.602 Left 11.0 ± 1.88 Helical mastoid distal length (mm) Right 16.3 ± 1.44 0.099 Left 15.7 ± 1.38 Tragus length (mm) Right 15.4 ± 2.40 0.405 Left 15.1 ± 2.37 Thickness of ear lobe (mm) Right 7.14 ± 1.07 0.362 Left 6.94 ± 0.91 Auricular index Right 48.0 ± 6.07 0.617 Left 47.5 ± 5.71 Lobular index Right 87.3 ± 18.1 0.545 Left 89.7 ± 17.4 Concha index Right 97.4 ± 9.50 0.989 Left 97.4 ± 11.4 Ear attachment length index Right 185 ± 8.40 0.996 Left 168 ± 7.33 Ear inclination angle (°) Right 15.1 ± 0.77 0.002 * Left 14.6 ± 0.81 Antihelical take off angle (°) Right 24.8 ± 1.43 0.045 * Left 24.2 ± 1.36 Concha mastoid angle (°) Right 88.7 ± 1.63 0.011 * Left 87.9 ± 1.65 * P value < 0.05-Significant. Table 2. Descriptive statistics of female parameters with their right and left comparison using Mann-Whitney test (non-normally distributed data) and independent T Test (normally distributed data). Parameters Mean± SD Left Right P value Ear length 68.4 ± 2.26 69.5 ± 2.11 0.096 Ear width 30.9 ± 2.67 31.2 ± 2.49 0.737 Lobe height 24.8 ± 2.39 25.2 ± 1.74 0.291 Lobe width 25.2 ± 2.14 25.7 ± 1.99 0.515 Concha length 16.0 ± 1.79 16.3 ± 1.77 0.569 Concha width 14.5 ± 2.04 15.1 ± 1.75 0.285 Morphological ear length 33.4 ± 1.35 34.8 ± 1.36 0.002 * Concha bowl depth 12.6 ± 1.05 12.9 ± 1.06 0.368 Helical mastoid distal length 15.2 ± 1.48 15.8 ± 1.72 0.236 Tragus length 15.5 ± 1.57 16.0 ± 1.78 0.357 Thickness of ear lobe 7.47 ± 0.898 7.88 ± 0.878 0.152 Auricular index 45.2 ± 3.10 44.8 ± 3.00 0.718 Lobular index 103 ± 13.9 102 ± 11.1 0.738 Concha index 90.7 ± 7.00 93.1 ± 6.25 0.259 Ear attachment length 48.8 ± 2.48 50.1 ± 2.86 0.326 Ear inclination angle 14.8 ± 0.927 15.4 ± 0.886 0.060 Anti helical take of angle 25.2 ± 0.834 25.8 ± 0.912 0.055 Concha mastoid angle 88.3 ± 1.45 88.8 ± 1.56 0.158 * P value < 0.05-Significant. When comparing the parameters of females on the right and left sides, it was noticed that only the morphological ear length (p=0.002) showed significant differences (p<0.05). The other parameters were not statistically significant. Table 3. Descriptive statistics of male parameters with their right and left comparison using Mann-Whitney test (non-normally distributed data) and independent T Test (normally distributed data). Parameters Mean ± SD Median (Min-Max) Left Right P value Ear length 56.2 ± 6.43 56.9 ± 6.13 0.758 Ear width 28.0 ± 2.70 28.8 ± 2.72 0.348 Lobe height 23.7 ± 2.28 25.2 ± 2.63 0.065 Lobe width 18.0 ± 1.54 18.0 ± 1.19 0.933 Concha length 13.0 ± 1.15 12.8 ± 1.17 0.787 Concha width 13.5 ± 1.43 12.9 ± 0.938 0.190 Morphological ear length 30.3 ± 1.72 30.0 ± 1.49 0.617 Concha bowl depth 9.48 ± 1.04 9.62 ± 1.14 0.626 Helical mastoid distal length 16.3 ± 1.01 16.8 ± 0.875 0.083 Tragus length 14.7 ± 2.96 14.8 ± 2.83 0.850 Thickness of ear lobe 6.41 ± 0.575 6.41 ± 0.656 0.992 Auricular index 49.7 ± 6.82 51.1 ± 6.77 0.253 Lobular index 76.6 ± 8.17 72.1 ± 8.17 0.093 Concha index 104 ± 11.1 102 ± 10.3 0.482 Ear attachment length 54.5 ± 6.82 53.4 ± 6.53 0.626 Ear inclination angle 14.3 ± 0.615 14.9 ± 0.572 0.004 * Anti helical take of angle 23.2 ± 1.01 23.9 ± 1.25 0.077 Concha mastoid angle 87.6 ± 1.82 88.6 ± 1.73 0.033 * * P value < 0.05-Significant. When comparing the parameters of males on the right and left sides, it was noticed that only the ear inclination angle (p=0.004) and concha mastoid angle (p=0.033) showed significant differences (p<0.05). The other parameters were not statistically significant. A comparison of parameters between males and females is shown in Table 4 . When comparing various parameters between males and females, it is observed that the following measurements were not significantly different: lobe height (right: p-value = 0.970, left: p-value = 0.162), concha width (left: p-value = 0.071), tragus length (right: p-value = 0.135, left: p-value = 0.316), ear attachment length (right: p-value = 0.318, left: p-value = 0.335), ear inclination angle (right: p-value = 0.053, left: p-value = 0.059), and concha mastoid angle (right: p-value = 0.753, left: p-value = 0.218). All other parameters were found to be significantly different, with p-values less than 0.05. Table 4. Comparison of male and female parameters using independent T-Test. Parameters Males Females P value Ear length right 56.9 ± 6.13 69.5 ± 2.11 <.001 * Ear length left 56.2 ± 6.43 68.4 ± 2.26 <.001 * Ear width right 28.8 ± 2.72 31.2 ± 2.49 0.005 * Ear width left 28.0 ± 2.70 30.9 ± 2.67 .001 * Lobe height right 25.2 ± 2.63 25.2 ± 1.74 0.970 Lobe height left 23.7 ± 2.28 24.8 ± 2.39 0.162 Lobe width right 18.0 ± 1.19 25.7 ± 1.99 <.001 * Lobe width left 18.0 ± 1.54 25.2 ± 2.14 <.001 * Concha length right 12.8 ± 1.17 16.3 ± 1.77 <.001 * Concha length left 13.0 ± 1.15 16.0 ± 1.79 <.001 * Concha width right 12.9 ± 0.938 15.1 ± 1.75 <.001 * Concha width left 13.5 ± 1.43 14.5 ± 2.04 0.071 Morphological ear length right 30.0 ± 1.49 34.8 ± 1.36 <.001 * Morphological ear length left 30.3 ± 1.72 33.4 ± 1.35 <.001 * Concha bowl depth right 9.62 ± 1.14 12.9 ± 1.06 <.001 * Concha bowl depth left 9.48 ± 1.04 12.6 ± 1.05 <.001 * Helical mastoid distal length right 16.8 ± 0.875 15.8 ± 1.72 0.028 * Helical mastoid distal length left 16.3 ± 1.01 15.2 ± 1.48 0.006 * Tragus length right 14.8 ± 2.83 16.0 ± 1.78 0.135 Tragus length left 14.7 ± 2.96 15.5 ± 1.57 0.316 Thickness of ear lobe right 6.41 ± 0.656 7.88 ± 0.878 <.001 * Thickness of ear lobe left 6.41 ± 0.575 7.47 ± 0.898 <.001 * Auricular index right 51.1 ± 6.77 44.8 ± 3.00 <.001 * Auricular index left 49.7 ± 6.82 45.2 ± 3.10 0.010 * Lobular index right 72.1 ± 8.17 102 ± 11.1 <.001 * Lobular index left 76.6 ± 8.17 103 ± 13.9 <.001 * Concha index right 102 ± 10.3 93.1 ± 6.25 0.003 * Concha index left 104 ± 11.1 90.7 ± 7.00 <.001 * Ear attachment length right 53.4 ± 6.53 50.1 ± 2.86 0.318 Ear attachment length left 54.5 ± 6.82 48.8 ± 2.48 0.335 Ear inclination angle right 14.9 ± 0.572 15.4 ± 0.886 0.053 Ear inclination angle left 14.3 ± 0.615 14.8 ± 0.927 0.059 Anti helical take of angle right 23.9 ± 1.25 25.8 ± 0.912 <.001 * Anti helical take of angle left 23.2 ± 1.01 25.2 ± 0.834 <.001 * Concha mastoid angle right 88.6 ± 1.73 88.8 ± 1.56 0.753 Concha mastoid angle left 87.6 ± 1.82 88.3 ± 1.45 0.218 * P value < 0.05-Significant. Gender and ear dimension Binomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the correlations between various ear measurements and sex. Multiple ear measurements were significant predictors of sex, as shown in Table 5 . 1. Right ear length: (sex) = -59.889 + 0.916 × (right ear length) 2. Left ear length: (sex) = -45.564 + 0.710 × (left ear length) 3. Right lobe width: This predictor showed perfect separation, indicating extremely high predictive power 4. Right concha bowl depth: (gender) = -40.82 + 3.67 * (right concha bowl depth) 5. Left concha bowl depth: (gender) = -47.90 + 4.38 * (left concha bowl depth) Table 5. Showing logistic regression analysis of ear morphometric predictors for gender. Predictor p value Odds Ratio (95% CI) Accuracy AUC Right ear length <.001 2.50 (1.12-5.57) 0.925 0.988 Left ear length <.001 2.03 (1.28-3.22) 0.925 0.978 Right lobe width <.001 7.11e+11 (0.00 – Inf ) 1.000 1.000 Right concha bowl depth <.001 39.1 (1.49-1023) 0.975 0.985 Left concha bowl depth <.001 80.2 (1.86-3464) 0.950 0.990 Figure 5. ROC Curves. A. Right ear length. B. Left ear length. C. Right lobe width. D. Right concha bowl depth. E. Left concha bowl depth. These results suggest that various ear measurements, particularly ear length, lobe width, and concha bowl depth, are strong predictors of sex. Right lobe width showed perfect separation, indicating its potential as an extremely reliable predictor. Stature and gender specific ear dimension Female Looking through the correlation matrices, the strongest correlation with height is with the ear inclination angle of both sides, with • Right ear inclination angle: Pearson’s r = 0.489, (p-value-0.029) • Left ear inclination angle: Pearson’s r = 0.599 (p-value-0.005) Linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the correlation between the height and ear inclination angle. There was a substantial positive correlation between height and the right and left ear inclination angles. The regression equations were as follows: Right Ear Inclination Angle ( in degrees ) = 7.72 + 1.40 × ( Height in feet ) Left Ear Inclination Angle ( in degrees ) = 5.02 + 1.80 × ( Height in feet ) The consistent finding of a significant positive correlation between height and ear inclination angle provides strong evidence of a solid association between these variables. The findings indicate that for every one-foot increase in height, the ear inclination angle increases by approximately 1.40 to 1.80 °. Male In males, there was no statistically significant correlation between height and any of the ear measurements. This suggests that in males ear dimensions may not be reliable for predicting a person’s height. Discussion The pinna shape and dimensions are influenced by age, sex, and racial origin. 2 Some of the features of the external ear are unique and peculiar in that they resemble the fingerprint of a person. 20 Since the inclination, shape, and dimensions of the human external ear are very specific, they have been recognized as valuable anthropological variables for studying racial differences. 21 Rai et al. found that approximately 38.8% of male and 36.9% of females had attached earlobes. The most common shape of the external ear was oval in both male and females. The ear index was higher in the male ears, whereas the lobule index was higher in the female ears. In their study, there were substantial differences between males and females in the following parameters: ear length right and left, ear width right and left, concha width, length of right ear lobule, and lobule index. 22 In our study also most common ear shape was oval in both males and females. 15% of male and 30% of females had attached ear lobes. The ear index in our study was higher in females while the lobule index was higher in males. This difference might be due to ethnic origin, as they conducted the study in North India and we conducted the study in South India. In our study, there were substantial differences between males and females in the following parameters: ear length right and left, ear width right and left, concha width, and lobule index, except right lobule length. Kumari et al. found that in males the ear length, width, and lobule width of both ears were higher as compared to females. They also found by linear regression coefficient analysis that there was a strong association between right and left ear length and stature in females. 23 In our study, all these parameters were greater in females than in males. A strong association between the right and left ear inclination angles and stature was observed in females using linear regression coefficient analysis. These differences in findings could be ethnic, as they have conducted research in North India, and we have conducted research in South India. Hiware et al. found that statistically significant differences were observed between males and females in right ear height, left ear width, and width of the right and left ear lobe. 24 In our study, we also found statistically significant differences between these parameters in males and females. Laxmi et al. found that the shape of the ear was oval in most specimens. The ear height and width were greater in males than females. The left auricular and lobular indices were higher in females than in males. Females had a longer right lobe than males. Tragus length was found to be greater in males than in females. 25 In our study, ear height and width were greater in females than in males. The left auricular index was higher in females than in males, but the lobular index was higher in males than in females. Right lobe length was the same in both sexes. Tragus length was found to be greater in females than in males. These differences in findings might be ethnic, as they have conducted research in the northwestern region of India, and we have conducted the study in South India. Verma et al. found that free and attached ear lobes were noted in 35% and 65% of the cases, respectively. The oval ear shape was the most common, followed by triangular, rectangular, and round shapes. No statistical differences were noted in the ear and lobular indices between males and females. 26 In our study, 45% of free and 55% of attached ear lobes were observed. The oval ear shape was the most evident, followed by triangular, round, and rectangular. In our study, statistical differences were observed in the ear and lobular indices between males and females. These differences in findings can be ethnic, as they have conducted research in the northwestern and northeastern regions of India, and we have conducted the study in South India. Farhan et al. found significant differences regarding gender in lobule height concerning sex. Free lobules were noted in 66% of males compared to 54% of females. The most common ear shape was triangular in males and rectangular in females. 27 In our study, there was no significant difference noted regarding gender in lobule height between the sexes. In our study, 50% of male free lobules were noted compared to 40% of female free lobules. The most common shape was oval in both males and females. These differences in findings can be racial, as they have conducted research in Iraq, and we have conducted research in South India. Bozkır et al. observed that all parameters measured were higher in males than in females. However, in our study, most parameters were found to be higher in females compared to males. 28 These differences in findings may be attributed to racial variations, as their research was conducted in Turkey, while ours was conducted in South India. Rani D et al. found that ear length, and ear breadth, exhibited significant sex differences on both sides (p<0.05). All ear measurements in males showed significant bilateral differences (p<0.05), except for lobule height. In females, significant side differences (p<0.05) were observed for lobule width. 29 In our study also significant sex differences was noted on both sides in ear length (p<0.001 in each) and ear breadth (Right - p-0.005, left - p-.001). However there were no significant side differences noted in any of the parameters of the ear among males and females. Khobkhun P et al. found no significant differences in auricular dimensions between the right and left sides. They also found that the auricular length, auricular width, and conchal length were larger in male than in female participants. 30 While in our study we also found that that there was no significant difference in any of the auricular dimensions between the right and the left sides except lobe height (p-0.038). In our study, we found that all parameters related to the auricle were larger in females compared to males. Boesoirie et al. reported that the auricle length, width, and concha length in men tended to be greater than those in women. However, the length of the lobule in women was found to be longer than in men, while the lobule and concha widths were similar in both sexes. 31 Overall, our findings do not align with these observations, as all measured auricle parameters were larger in females compared to males. This might be due to racial differences as they have conducted the study in the Sudanese population and the present study was conducted in the Indian population. Sowmya MV et al. found that oval shaped auricle, rolled helix, square earlobe and knob shaped tragus was seen in majority of the cases. The attached type of earlobe attachment was more in the right auricle (37%) and the partial attachment ear lobe was more in the left side auricle (35.5%). The mean length and width of the auricle & attachment length are higher in males compared to females. Ear Angulation is highest among females. 32 In our study also most common shape was oval. But helix was most commonly concave marginal, ear lobe was arched, and tragus was round. Ear lobe attachment was free. In our study all parameters are higher in females compared to males. This might be due to ethnic differences as they have conducted the study in the Northern population and the present study was conducted in the Southern population. Purohit K et al. found that males had significantly high ear parameters for both ears compared to females. There was a strong correlation of stature with the ear parameters. 33 In our study all parameters are higher in females compared to males. In our study in females the strongest correlation with height is with the ear inclination angle of both sides. In males there was no statistically significant correlation between height and any of the ear measurements. Jan SS and Mohd Saleem S found that males had significantly high ear parameters for both ears compared to females. 34 In our study all parameters are higher in females compared to males. This might be due to ethnic differences as they have conducted the study in the Northern population and the present study was conducted in the Southern population. Fakorede et al. found that oval ears were more common, followed by round ears. Arch-shaped lobules were the most frequently seen. Free earlobe attachment was the most common among the Nigerian populations, followed by partial attachment, while the attached earlobe was the least expressed. They also found that a knob-shaped tragus was the most prevalent. The wide form of the helix was the most evident. The nodosity-shaped Darwin tubercle appears to be the most prevalent. When comparing the right and left ear parameters, it was noted that all parameters were statistically significant, except for ear width. They also found that ear length, lobule height, lobule width, and concha length mainly contribute to sex classification. 11 In our study, the most common ear shape was oval and arch-shaped. Even earlobe attachment was free in our study, followed by partial and full attachment. In our study, round-shaped tragus and concave marginal form of the helix were mostly observed. An enlarged Darwin’s tubercle was mostly observed. Comparing the parameters on the right and left sides, it was noticed that lobe height (p-value- 0.038), ear inclination angle (p-value- 0.002), antihelical takeoff angle (p-value- 0.045), and concha mastoid angle (p-value- 0.011) showed significant differences (p-value <0.05). The other parameters were not statistically significant. In our study, ear length, lobe width, and concha bowl depth were strong predictors of gender. Some differences in findings can be racial, as they have conducted research in Nigeria, and we have conducted research in South India. Morphological changes and morphometric parameters of the human ear can be utilized jointly with forensic DNA evaluation to solve complicated incidents, principally where fingerprints or facial recognition tools are not accessible. 11 The results of this study will help in identification of stature and sex from various ear parameters in young South Indian adults (18–25 years). Limitations of the study • The results are preliminary and exploratory due to the small sample size, so, studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors. • To predict male sex, no ear parameters were significant. This study aimed to predict sex and stature based on ear dimensions in young South Indian adults (18–25 years). In both males and females, the common shape was oval, and the ear lobe was free. The most common shape of the ear lobe in males was arched, while in females, it was triangular. In males and females, the most common form of the helix was the concave marginal. In males, the most common shape of the tragus was round, whereas in females, it was long. In males and females, the most common shape of Darwin’s tubercle was enlarged. Comparing the parameters on the right and left sides, it was noticed that lobe height, ear inclination angle, antihelical takeoff angle, and concha mastoid angle showed significant differences (p-value <0.05). When comparing the parameters of females on the right and left sides, it was noticed that only the morphological ear length showed significant differences (p<0.05). When comparing the parameters of males on the right and left sides, it was noticed that only the ear inclination angle and concha mastoid angle showed significant differences (p<0.05). When comparing parameters between males and females, it can be noticed that lobe height right and left, concha width left, tragus length right and left, ear attachment length right and left, ear inclination angle right and left, concha mastoid angle right, and left were not significantly different (p-value >0.05). It was seen that the right lobe width showed perfect separation, indicating its potential as an extremely reliable predictor of sex. It was noted that in females, the strongest correlation with height was with the ear inclination angle on both sides. Ethical considerations Institutional ethical approval was obtained from the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee on 31 st May 31, 2024, before starting the research on 5 th June 2024 (IEC NO – IEC2 – 113/2024). Data availability Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation — A Preliminary Observational Study. https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_Excel_sheet/28120586?file=51439520 . doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28120586 . 19 The project contains the following underlying data: Data sheet of all 40 cases. Extended data The study contains the following extended data. Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation — A Preliminary Observational Study. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28137164.v5 . 35 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Reporting guidelines We used STROBE checklist for Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation — A Preliminary Observational Study. https://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/Strobe_checklist/28120598?file=51564029 doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.28120598 . 17 Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Acknowledgements Nil References 1. Deopa D, Thakkar HK, Prakash C, et al. : Anthropometric measurements of the external ear in medical students in the Uttarakhand region. J. Anat. Soc. India. 2013; 62 (1): 79–83. Publisher Full Text 2. Alexander KS, Stott DJ, Sivakumar B, et al. : Morphometric study of human ear. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2011; 64 : 41–47. Publisher Full Text 3. Gibelli D, Mapelli A, Obertovà Z, et al. : Age changes of facial measurements in European young adult males: Implications for the identification of the living. Homo. 2012; 63 (6): 451–458. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Kumar P, Singla A: Ear biometric: sex, bilateral, and ethnic differences among Brahmin and Yadav communities of Bundelkhand region using PCA technique. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2013; 4 : 799–805. 5. Krishan K, Kanchan T: Identification: Prints-ear.Payne-James J, Byard RW, editors. Encyclopedia of forensic and legal medicine. 2nd edn.Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.; 2015; pp. 74–80. Publisher Full Text 6. Chang K, Bowyer K, Barnabas V: Comparison and combination of ear and face images in appearance-based biometrics. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2003; 25 : 1160–1165. Publisher Full Text 7. Rahman M, Islam R, Bhuiyan NI, et al. : Person identification using ear biometrics. Int. J. Comput. Internet Manag. 2007; 15 (2): 1–8. 8. Daramola SA, Oluwaninyo.: Automatic ear-recognition system using back-propagation neural network. Int. J. Video Image Process Netw. Secur. 2011; 11 (1): 28–32. 9. Murgod V, Angadi P, Hallikerimath S, et al. : Anthropometric study of the external ear and its applicability in sex identification: assessed in an Indian sample. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2013; 45 (4): 431–444. Publisher Full Text 10. Meijerman L: Inter- and intra-individual variation in earprints. Netherlands: Leiden University; 2006. Doctoral Thesis. Accessed 9 Apr 2020. Reference Source 11. Fakorede ST, Adekoya KO, et al. : Ear morphology and morphometry are potential forensic tools for the identification of the Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba populations in Nigeria. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2021; 45 : 205. Publisher Full Text 12. Victor B, Bowyer KW, Sarkar S: Evaluation of facial and ear biometrics. Proc. Int. Conf. Pattern Recog. 2002; 1 : 429–432. 13. Amirthalingam G, Radhamani GA: Multimodal approach to face and ear biometric systems. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Issues. 2013; 10 (5): 234–241. 14. Muntasa A, Sirajudin IA, et al. : Global and local structure fusion for face image recognition. Telkomnika. 2011; 9 (1): 125–132. Publisher Full Text 15. Natekar PE, De Souza FM: Demarking and identifying points-reliable criteria for determining sex from the external ear. Indian J. Otolaryngol. 2012; 18 (1): 24. Publisher Full Text 16. Laxman K: Determination of stature in the hybrid population using external ear morphometry. Medico Legal Update. 2019; 19 (1): 164–168. Publisher Full Text 17. Gupta C: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation — A Preliminary Observational Study. Strobe checklist. figshare. [Online resources]. 2025. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 18. Jamovi software 2.4. Reference Source 19. Gupta C: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation — A Preliminary Observational Study. Data excel. [Dataset]. figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 20. Dhanda V, Badhan JS, Garg RK: Studies on the development of latent ear prints and their significance in personal identification. Prob. Forensic Sci. 2011; 88 : 285–295. 21. Akpa A, Ibiam A, Ugwu C: Anthropometric study of the pinna among southeast Nigerians. J. Expt. Res. 2013; 1 : 47–50. 22. Rai R, Diwakar CK, Kumar K, et al. : Morphometrical variation in the structure of the external ear: A comparative study in males and females of North India. Afr.J.Bio.Sc. 2024; 6 (SI1): 217–226. 23. Kumari A, Devadas D, Patel JK, et al. : Morphometric Analysis of External Ear to Estimate the Stature and Sexual Dimorphism in North Indians: A Cross-sectional Study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2022; 16 (5): MC10–MC14. Publisher Full Text 24. Hiware SD, AlFaqeeh KA, Alattallah SS, et al. : Morphometric Parameters of the Ear and Their Sexual Dimorphism in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2024; 16 (1): e51625. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 25. Laxmi V, Palak NS, Kullar JS, et al. : External Ear: morphological and morphometric study in North Indian males and females. Int. J. Anat. Res. 2017; 5 (2.2): 3866–3869. Publisher Full Text 26. Verma P, Sandhu HK, Verma KG, et al. : Morphological Variations and Biometrics of Ear: An Aid to Personal Identification. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2016; 10 (5): ZC138–ZC142. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 27. Farhan SS, Al-Jewari WM, Al-Maathidy AQA, et al. : Morphological assessment of Ear auricle in a group of Iraqi subjects and its possible role in personal identification. IJAE. 2019; 124 (3): 432–442. 28. Bozkır MG, Karakas P, Yavuz M, et al. : Morphometry of the External Ear in Our Adult Population. Aesth. Plast. Surg. 2006; 30 : 81–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 29. Rani D, Krishan K, Sahani R, et al. : Variability in human external ear anthropometry-Anthropological and forensic applications. Clin. Ter. 2021; 172 (6): 531–541. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 30. Khobkhun P, Pungrasmi P, Suwajo P, et al. : An anthropometric study of the external ear in the Thai population. JPRAS. 2022; 75 : 1417–1423. Publisher Full Text 31. Boesoirie SF, Handayani R, Gatera VA, et al. : Determination of the Difference Between Men and Women Anthropometry Auricles Using Photogrammetric Method in Sundanese Ethnic Group. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dermatol. 2022; 15 : 2133–2141. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Sowmya MV, Mehrotra D, Mohammad S, et al. : 3D assessment of ear morphology. J. Oral Biol. Craniofac. Res. 2023; 13 (5):622–629. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 33. Purohit K, Yadav B, Gupta S: A study on utility of ear morphometry for estimation of stature among North Indian population. J. Chem. Health Risks. 2024; 14 (1):2524–2530. 34. Jan SS, Mohd SS: Ear morphology and anthropometry: gender and age differences in Indian college students. Indian J. Clin. Anat. Physiol. 2023; 10 (1):27–31. Publisher Full Text 35. Gupta C: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation — A Preliminary Observational Study. PIS and IC forms. [Dataset]. figshare. 2025. Publisher Full Text Reference Source Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 22 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Department of Anatomy, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India 2 Department of Forensic Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India Shwetha Acharya Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Chandni Gupta Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Vikram Palimar Roles: Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Sneha Guruprasad Kalthur Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – Review & Editing Purnima Adhikari Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 15 May 2025, 14:119 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.3 version 2 Revised Published: 17 Mar 2025, 14:119 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.2 version 1 Published: 22 Jan 2025, 14:119 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.1 Copyright © 2025 Acharya S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Acharya S, Gupta C, Palimar V et al. Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160629.3 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 15 May 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sezgin N. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385019 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3#referee-response-385019 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Jun 2025 Nurdan Sezgin , Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385019 The authors' revisions are deemed sufficient. ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors' revisions are deemed sufficient. There is no problem in indexing. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Forensic anthropology, identification, age and sex estimation from facial images and ear images I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Sezgin N. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385019 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3#referee-response-385019 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Agarwal J. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385016 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3#referee-response-385016 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 May 2025 Jolly Agarwal , ANATOMY, Government doon medical college, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385016 No ... Continue reading READ ALL No further comments Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Anatomist, Osteology, Medical Education, Histology and Radiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Agarwal J. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385016 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3#referee-response-385016 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 17 Mar 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sezgin N. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371387 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-371387 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 Apr 2025 Nurdan Sezgin , Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371387 There are some points that need attention in the study: 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications ... Continue reading READ ALL There are some points that need attention in the study: 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can be increased. 2. It may be more meaningful to express measurements with anthropometric points (landmarks) when defining them. In fact, this marking can be done in the images. 3. Working with 40 ear samples can be considered sufficient in terms of descriptive statistics. However, when comparing between sexes, the number is insufficient. 4. A table is given regarding the statistical significance of ear measurements, but it is not given which measurement has which value in female and male. Including this information is important in the following respect: if the sex difference in ear measurements seems large, a sample group of 40 people can be considered sufficient. However, if the difference is small or at an average level, the number of samples are small (I am evaluating it for 40 people). 5. Therefore increasing the sample size of the study and making a new statistical calculation will both take time and reduce the motivation of the researchers. So, the title of this study can be updated as follows: If the study will continue with a larger sample, "pilot study" should be added. If this study will remain with 40 people and a new, larger database will not be used, it is recommended to update it by adding "preliminary observational study". Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Forensic anthropology, identification, age and sex estimation from facial images and ear images I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Sezgin N. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371387 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-371387 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 15 May 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 15 May 2025 Author Response 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can ... Continue reading 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can be increased. - Response: Done added. 2. It may be more meaningful to express measurements with anthropometric points (landmarks) when defining them. In fact, this marking can be done in the images. Response - Added the landmarks in the images. 3. Working with 40 ear samples can be considered sufficient in terms of descriptive statistics. However, when comparing between sexes, the number is insufficient. Response - This sample size we got from our statistics department by seeing from previous studies as we were doing both morphometric and morphological study. 4. A table is given regarding the statistical significance of ear measurements, but it is not given which measurement has which value in female and male. Including this information is important in the following respect: if the sex difference in ear measurements seems large, a sample group of 40 people can be considered sufficient. However, if the difference is small or at an average level, the number of samples are small (I am evaluating it for 40 people). Response - Added the values of measurement in table 4. And Sex difference is seen in all parameters except lobe height (right: p-value = 0.970, left: p-value = 0.162), concha width (left: p-value = 0.071), tragus length (right: p-value = 0.135, left: p-value = 0.316), ear attachment length (right: p-value = 0.318, left: p-value = 0.335), ear inclination angle (right: p-value = 0.053, left: p-value = 0.059), and concha mastoid angle (right: p-value = 0.753, left: p-value = 0.218). All other parameters were found to be significantly different, with p-values less than 0.05. 5. Therefore increasing the sample size of the study and making a new statistical calculation will both take time and reduce the motivation of the researchers. So, the title of this study can be updated as follows: If the study will continue with a larger sample, "pilot study" should be added. If this study will remain with 40 people and a new, larger database will not be used, it is recommended to update it by adding "preliminary observational study". Response: Added in title “Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study” 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can be increased. - Response: Done added. 2. It may be more meaningful to express measurements with anthropometric points (landmarks) when defining them. In fact, this marking can be done in the images. Response - Added the landmarks in the images. 3. Working with 40 ear samples can be considered sufficient in terms of descriptive statistics. However, when comparing between sexes, the number is insufficient. Response - This sample size we got from our statistics department by seeing from previous studies as we were doing both morphometric and morphological study. 4. A table is given regarding the statistical significance of ear measurements, but it is not given which measurement has which value in female and male. Including this information is important in the following respect: if the sex difference in ear measurements seems large, a sample group of 40 people can be considered sufficient. However, if the difference is small or at an average level, the number of samples are small (I am evaluating it for 40 people). Response - Added the values of measurement in table 4. And Sex difference is seen in all parameters except lobe height (right: p-value = 0.970, left: p-value = 0.162), concha width (left: p-value = 0.071), tragus length (right: p-value = 0.135, left: p-value = 0.316), ear attachment length (right: p-value = 0.318, left: p-value = 0.335), ear inclination angle (right: p-value = 0.053, left: p-value = 0.059), and concha mastoid angle (right: p-value = 0.753, left: p-value = 0.218). All other parameters were found to be significantly different, with p-values less than 0.05. 5. Therefore increasing the sample size of the study and making a new statistical calculation will both take time and reduce the motivation of the researchers. So, the title of this study can be updated as follows: If the study will continue with a larger sample, "pilot study" should be added. If this study will remain with 40 people and a new, larger database will not be used, it is recommended to update it by adding "preliminary observational study". Response: Added in title “Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study” Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 15 May 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 15 May 2025 Author Response 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can ... Continue reading 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can be increased. - Response: Done added. 2. It may be more meaningful to express measurements with anthropometric points (landmarks) when defining them. In fact, this marking can be done in the images. Response - Added the landmarks in the images. 3. Working with 40 ear samples can be considered sufficient in terms of descriptive statistics. However, when comparing between sexes, the number is insufficient. Response - This sample size we got from our statistics department by seeing from previous studies as we were doing both morphometric and morphological study. 4. A table is given regarding the statistical significance of ear measurements, but it is not given which measurement has which value in female and male. Including this information is important in the following respect: if the sex difference in ear measurements seems large, a sample group of 40 people can be considered sufficient. However, if the difference is small or at an average level, the number of samples are small (I am evaluating it for 40 people). Response - Added the values of measurement in table 4. And Sex difference is seen in all parameters except lobe height (right: p-value = 0.970, left: p-value = 0.162), concha width (left: p-value = 0.071), tragus length (right: p-value = 0.135, left: p-value = 0.316), ear attachment length (right: p-value = 0.318, left: p-value = 0.335), ear inclination angle (right: p-value = 0.053, left: p-value = 0.059), and concha mastoid angle (right: p-value = 0.753, left: p-value = 0.218). All other parameters were found to be significantly different, with p-values less than 0.05. 5. Therefore increasing the sample size of the study and making a new statistical calculation will both take time and reduce the motivation of the researchers. So, the title of this study can be updated as follows: If the study will continue with a larger sample, "pilot study" should be added. If this study will remain with 40 people and a new, larger database will not be used, it is recommended to update it by adding "preliminary observational study". Response: Added in title “Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study” 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can be increased. - Response: Done added. 2. It may be more meaningful to express measurements with anthropometric points (landmarks) when defining them. In fact, this marking can be done in the images. Response - Added the landmarks in the images. 3. Working with 40 ear samples can be considered sufficient in terms of descriptive statistics. However, when comparing between sexes, the number is insufficient. Response - This sample size we got from our statistics department by seeing from previous studies as we were doing both morphometric and morphological study. 4. A table is given regarding the statistical significance of ear measurements, but it is not given which measurement has which value in female and male. Including this information is important in the following respect: if the sex difference in ear measurements seems large, a sample group of 40 people can be considered sufficient. However, if the difference is small or at an average level, the number of samples are small (I am evaluating it for 40 people). Response - Added the values of measurement in table 4. And Sex difference is seen in all parameters except lobe height (right: p-value = 0.970, left: p-value = 0.162), concha width (left: p-value = 0.071), tragus length (right: p-value = 0.135, left: p-value = 0.316), ear attachment length (right: p-value = 0.318, left: p-value = 0.335), ear inclination angle (right: p-value = 0.053, left: p-value = 0.059), and concha mastoid angle (right: p-value = 0.753, left: p-value = 0.218). All other parameters were found to be significantly different, with p-values less than 0.05. 5. Therefore increasing the sample size of the study and making a new statistical calculation will both take time and reduce the motivation of the researchers. So, the title of this study can be updated as follows: If the study will continue with a larger sample, "pilot study" should be added. If this study will remain with 40 people and a new, larger database will not be used, it is recommended to update it by adding "preliminary observational study". Response: Added in title “Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study” Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Emeka AG. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374367 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-374367 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 29 Apr 2025 Anyanwu Godson Emeka , Kampala International University, Ishaka, Uganda Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374367 The focus of this observational study was the morphology and morphometry of the human external ear studied in 40 young adults (20 males, 20 females) aged 18–25. Also studied was the reliability of generated data for sex determination and stature ... Continue reading READ ALL The focus of this observational study was the morphology and morphometry of the human external ear studied in 40 young adults (20 males, 20 females) aged 18–25. Also studied was the reliability of generated data for sex determination and stature estimation in the scope of forensic purposes. The study used standardized measurements and morphological assessment of different ear features (lobe type, tragus shape, helix form, Darwin’s tubercle) and revealed significant sexual dimorphism and correlations to height, as well as the right ear lobe width and ear inclination angle as potential reliable predictors. The results indicate the forensic significance of external ear characteristics in personal identification. Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation The two sentences in the background of the abstract are awkwardly phrased with some redundancy . The word “Therefore” is used twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant , and this disrupts the flow. The awkward phrasing of the sentence … “. this study aimed to evaluate the stature and sexual dimorphism of the external ear” is slightly misinforming because the ear is not attributed with stature and sexual dimophism, rather the stature and gender of individuals can be estimated from its features. i have problem with method part of the abstract, i feel the study design [eg cross sectional , longitudinal etc] and recruiting process [ eg simple random, purposive etc] would have been captured very briefly here. Suggestion “This was a cross-sectional observational study involving ……. recruited from ………… using purposive sampling/ simple random technique. The statement where you used the word “like” as captured in this sentence “18 measurements were taken like ear length and width, lobule height and width …..’ does not clearly connote you measured these parameters, you are indirectly saying you measured parameters that are similar to …. Pls recast sentence In this sentence “A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. “ you said that a digital caliper was used to measure all parameters, when this is not correct, because the angles are part of the parameters studied and you measured them with goniometers. Pls recast sentence I have concerns with the current results paragraph because it lacks quantitative depth and clarity in highlighting statistical significance, distribution patterns, and key findings that strengthen forensic value. Your conclusion is vague and lacks scope and specificity. In your revision summarize which specific measurements were most useful (e.g., right earlobe width, ear inclination angle), as identified in your results. The two sentences below are from your introduction, while one is in the present tense, the other is in the past. Pls recast to maintain consistency This statement is an over-statement pls recast: “To date, no study has been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population’ Methods section lacks coherence and feels more like a list of procedures than a well-structured narrative. The section reads like disconnected bullet points rather than a continuous, organized description of the research process. Also the narrative jumps between ethical clearance, reporting guidelines, study period, and sampling criteria without transition or thematic grouping. The same observation made in 11 above is also noted in the discussion sections of this work Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: My study encompasses spine biomechanics, obesity-associated musculoskeletal problems, and anatomical risk determinants in orthopedics and neurodegenerative diseases. I am recognized for promoting forensic morphometry and anatomical teaching through creative tools, including the award-winning Anatomy Adventure board game. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Emeka AG. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374367 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-374367 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 28 May 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 28 May 2025 Author Response Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation- Changed the title ... Continue reading Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation- Changed the title The two sentences in the background of the abstract are awkwardly phrased with some redundancy . The word “Therefore” is used twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant , and this disrupts the flow. The awkward phrasing of the sentence … “. this study aimed to evaluate the stature and sexual dimorphism of the external ear” is slightly misinforming because the ear is not attributed with stature and sexual dimophism, rather the stature and gender of individuals can be estimated from its features.-Corrected the sentence. i have problem with method part of the abstract, i feel the study design [eg cross sectional , longitudinal etc] and recruiting process [ eg simple random, purposive etc] would have been captured very briefly here. Suggestion “This was a cross-sectional observational study involving ……. recruited from ………… using purposive sampling/ simple random technique.- Added The statement where you used the word “like” as captured in this sentence “18 measurements were taken like ear length and width, lobule height and width …..’ does not clearly connote you measured these parameters, you are indirectly saying you measured parameters that are similar to …. Pls recast sentence- Changed In this sentence “A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. “ you said that a digital caliper was used to measure all parameters, when this is not correct, because the angles are part of the parameters studied and you measured them with goniometers. Pls recast sentence- Corrected the sentence I have concerns with the current results paragraph because it lacks quantitative depth and clarity in highlighting statistical significance, distribution patterns, and key findings that strengthen forensic value.- Added Your conclusion is vague and lacks scope and specificity. In your revision summarize which specific measurements were most useful (e.g., right earlobe width, ear inclination angle), as identified in your results.- Added The two sentences below are from your introduction, while one is in the present tense, the other is in the past. Pls recast to maintain consistency- Changed This statement is an over-statement pls recast: “To date, no study has been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population’- Changed Methods section lacks coherence and feels more like a list of procedures than a well-structured narrative. The section reads like disconnected bullet points rather than a continuous, organized description of the research process. Also the narrative jumps between ethical clearance, reporting guidelines, study period, and sampling criteria without transition or thematic grouping.- This was made according to Strobe guidelines. And the template was giving from the F1000 journal, so we maintained it. The same observation made in 11 above is also noted in the discussion sections of this work- Corrected the discussion and I have discussed the previous results with our study and added why they are similar or different from our study and added few more studies. Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation- Changed the title The two sentences in the background of the abstract are awkwardly phrased with some redundancy . The word “Therefore” is used twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant , and this disrupts the flow. The awkward phrasing of the sentence … “. this study aimed to evaluate the stature and sexual dimorphism of the external ear” is slightly misinforming because the ear is not attributed with stature and sexual dimophism, rather the stature and gender of individuals can be estimated from its features.-Corrected the sentence. i have problem with method part of the abstract, i feel the study design [eg cross sectional , longitudinal etc] and recruiting process [ eg simple random, purposive etc] would have been captured very briefly here. Suggestion “This was a cross-sectional observational study involving ……. recruited from ………… using purposive sampling/ simple random technique.- Added The statement where you used the word “like” as captured in this sentence “18 measurements were taken like ear length and width, lobule height and width …..’ does not clearly connote you measured these parameters, you are indirectly saying you measured parameters that are similar to …. Pls recast sentence- Changed In this sentence “A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. “ you said that a digital caliper was used to measure all parameters, when this is not correct, because the angles are part of the parameters studied and you measured them with goniometers. Pls recast sentence- Corrected the sentence I have concerns with the current results paragraph because it lacks quantitative depth and clarity in highlighting statistical significance, distribution patterns, and key findings that strengthen forensic value.- Added Your conclusion is vague and lacks scope and specificity. In your revision summarize which specific measurements were most useful (e.g., right earlobe width, ear inclination angle), as identified in your results.- Added The two sentences below are from your introduction, while one is in the present tense, the other is in the past. Pls recast to maintain consistency- Changed This statement is an over-statement pls recast: “To date, no study has been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population’- Changed Methods section lacks coherence and feels more like a list of procedures than a well-structured narrative. The section reads like disconnected bullet points rather than a continuous, organized description of the research process. Also the narrative jumps between ethical clearance, reporting guidelines, study period, and sampling criteria without transition or thematic grouping.- This was made according to Strobe guidelines. And the template was giving from the F1000 journal, so we maintained it. The same observation made in 11 above is also noted in the discussion sections of this work- Corrected the discussion and I have discussed the previous results with our study and added why they are similar or different from our study and added few more studies. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 28 May 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 28 May 2025 Author Response Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation- Changed the title ... Continue reading Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation- Changed the title The two sentences in the background of the abstract are awkwardly phrased with some redundancy . The word “Therefore” is used twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant , and this disrupts the flow. The awkward phrasing of the sentence … “. this study aimed to evaluate the stature and sexual dimorphism of the external ear” is slightly misinforming because the ear is not attributed with stature and sexual dimophism, rather the stature and gender of individuals can be estimated from its features.-Corrected the sentence. i have problem with method part of the abstract, i feel the study design [eg cross sectional , longitudinal etc] and recruiting process [ eg simple random, purposive etc] would have been captured very briefly here. Suggestion “This was a cross-sectional observational study involving ……. recruited from ………… using purposive sampling/ simple random technique.- Added The statement where you used the word “like” as captured in this sentence “18 measurements were taken like ear length and width, lobule height and width …..’ does not clearly connote you measured these parameters, you are indirectly saying you measured parameters that are similar to …. Pls recast sentence- Changed In this sentence “A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. “ you said that a digital caliper was used to measure all parameters, when this is not correct, because the angles are part of the parameters studied and you measured them with goniometers. Pls recast sentence- Corrected the sentence I have concerns with the current results paragraph because it lacks quantitative depth and clarity in highlighting statistical significance, distribution patterns, and key findings that strengthen forensic value.- Added Your conclusion is vague and lacks scope and specificity. In your revision summarize which specific measurements were most useful (e.g., right earlobe width, ear inclination angle), as identified in your results.- Added The two sentences below are from your introduction, while one is in the present tense, the other is in the past. Pls recast to maintain consistency- Changed This statement is an over-statement pls recast: “To date, no study has been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population’- Changed Methods section lacks coherence and feels more like a list of procedures than a well-structured narrative. The section reads like disconnected bullet points rather than a continuous, organized description of the research process. Also the narrative jumps between ethical clearance, reporting guidelines, study period, and sampling criteria without transition or thematic grouping.- This was made according to Strobe guidelines. And the template was giving from the F1000 journal, so we maintained it. The same observation made in 11 above is also noted in the discussion sections of this work- Corrected the discussion and I have discussed the previous results with our study and added why they are similar or different from our study and added few more studies. Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation- Changed the title The two sentences in the background of the abstract are awkwardly phrased with some redundancy . The word “Therefore” is used twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant , and this disrupts the flow. The awkward phrasing of the sentence … “. this study aimed to evaluate the stature and sexual dimorphism of the external ear” is slightly misinforming because the ear is not attributed with stature and sexual dimophism, rather the stature and gender of individuals can be estimated from its features.-Corrected the sentence. i have problem with method part of the abstract, i feel the study design [eg cross sectional , longitudinal etc] and recruiting process [ eg simple random, purposive etc] would have been captured very briefly here. Suggestion “This was a cross-sectional observational study involving ……. recruited from ………… using purposive sampling/ simple random technique.- Added The statement where you used the word “like” as captured in this sentence “18 measurements were taken like ear length and width, lobule height and width …..’ does not clearly connote you measured these parameters, you are indirectly saying you measured parameters that are similar to …. Pls recast sentence- Changed In this sentence “A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. “ you said that a digital caliper was used to measure all parameters, when this is not correct, because the angles are part of the parameters studied and you measured them with goniometers. Pls recast sentence- Corrected the sentence I have concerns with the current results paragraph because it lacks quantitative depth and clarity in highlighting statistical significance, distribution patterns, and key findings that strengthen forensic value.- Added Your conclusion is vague and lacks scope and specificity. In your revision summarize which specific measurements were most useful (e.g., right earlobe width, ear inclination angle), as identified in your results.- Added The two sentences below are from your introduction, while one is in the present tense, the other is in the past. Pls recast to maintain consistency- Changed This statement is an over-statement pls recast: “To date, no study has been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population’- Changed Methods section lacks coherence and feels more like a list of procedures than a well-structured narrative. The section reads like disconnected bullet points rather than a continuous, organized description of the research process. Also the narrative jumps between ethical clearance, reporting guidelines, study period, and sampling criteria without transition or thematic grouping.- This was made according to Strobe guidelines. And the template was giving from the F1000 journal, so we maintained it. The same observation made in 11 above is also noted in the discussion sections of this work- Corrected the discussion and I have discussed the previous results with our study and added why they are similar or different from our study and added few more studies. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Asghar A. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374370 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-374370 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 25 Apr 2025 Adil Asghar , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374370 Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only ... Continue reading READ ALL Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults (18–25 years) and may not generalize across age, region, or ethnicity . Address Small Sample Size in Interpretation Issue : With just 40 participants, some results—like "perfect separation" in logistic regression—might be artifacts of overfitting. Required Action : Clearly state that results are preliminary and exploratory , and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors. Include AUC Curves or Graphs for Sex Prediction Issue : AUC values are reported, but no visual ROC curve or regression diagnostics are shown. Required Action : Include graphical output of logistic regression model (e.g., ROC curve, classification plot) to visually support claims of predictive strength. �� Minor Revisions Suggested Language and Grammar Rephrase awkward phrases: “Subjects who do not having ear deformity” → “Subjects without any ear deformities.” “Measurement was performed twice by two people” → “Each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers.” Perform a light grammar and clarity check across the manuscript. Duplicate or Misplaced Text Table headers or descriptions appear to repeat on some pages (possibly due to PDF formatting). Check for repetitive statistical table text and ensure clean formatting before indexing. Improve Figure Captions and Labels Figures 1–4 could use more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own. Include scale markers where appropriate. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Asghar A. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374370 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-374370 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 04 May 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 04 May 2025 Author Response Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : ... Continue reading Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults (18–25 years) and may not generalize across age, region, or ethnicity - Added in the abstract, discussion and conclusion Address Small Sample Size in Interpretation Issue : With just 40 participants, some results—like "perfect separation" in logistic regression—might be artifacts of overfitting. Required Action : Clearly state that results are preliminary and exploratory , and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors.- Added in limitations Include AUC Curves or Graphs for Sex Prediction Issue : AUC values are reported, but no visual ROC curve or regression diagnostics are shown. Required Action : Include graphical output of logistic regression model (e.g., ROC curve, classification plot) to visually support claims of predictive strength.- ROC curves are added as Figure 5 �� Minor Revisions Suggested Language and Grammar Rephrase awkward phrases: “Subjects who do not having ear deformity” → “Subjects without any ear deformities.”- Changed “Measurement was performed twice by two people” → “Each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers.”- Changed Perform a light grammar and clarity check across the manuscript.- Done all grammatical mistakes are corrected throughout the manuscript. Duplicate or Misplaced Text Table headers or descriptions appear to repeat on some pages (possibly due to PDF formatting).- Removed Check for repetitive statistical table text and ensure clean formatting before indexing.- Done Improve Figure Captions and Labels Figures 1–4 could use more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own.- Added more description to all the figures legends. Include scale markers where appropriate.- As measurements were not taken on images we can’t show the scale markers. In images we have shown from where-to-where measurements has been taken. Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults (18–25 years) and may not generalize across age, region, or ethnicity - Added in the abstract, discussion and conclusion Address Small Sample Size in Interpretation Issue : With just 40 participants, some results—like "perfect separation" in logistic regression—might be artifacts of overfitting. Required Action : Clearly state that results are preliminary and exploratory , and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors.- Added in limitations Include AUC Curves or Graphs for Sex Prediction Issue : AUC values are reported, but no visual ROC curve or regression diagnostics are shown. Required Action : Include graphical output of logistic regression model (e.g., ROC curve, classification plot) to visually support claims of predictive strength.- ROC curves are added as Figure 5 �� Minor Revisions Suggested Language and Grammar Rephrase awkward phrases: “Subjects who do not having ear deformity” → “Subjects without any ear deformities.”- Changed “Measurement was performed twice by two people” → “Each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers.”- Changed Perform a light grammar and clarity check across the manuscript.- Done all grammatical mistakes are corrected throughout the manuscript. Duplicate or Misplaced Text Table headers or descriptions appear to repeat on some pages (possibly due to PDF formatting).- Removed Check for repetitive statistical table text and ensure clean formatting before indexing.- Done Improve Figure Captions and Labels Figures 1–4 could use more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own.- Added more description to all the figures legends. Include scale markers where appropriate.- As measurements were not taken on images we can’t show the scale markers. In images we have shown from where-to-where measurements has been taken. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 04 May 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 04 May 2025 Author Response Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : ... Continue reading Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults (18–25 years) and may not generalize across age, region, or ethnicity - Added in the abstract, discussion and conclusion Address Small Sample Size in Interpretation Issue : With just 40 participants, some results—like "perfect separation" in logistic regression—might be artifacts of overfitting. Required Action : Clearly state that results are preliminary and exploratory , and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors.- Added in limitations Include AUC Curves or Graphs for Sex Prediction Issue : AUC values are reported, but no visual ROC curve or regression diagnostics are shown. Required Action : Include graphical output of logistic regression model (e.g., ROC curve, classification plot) to visually support claims of predictive strength.- ROC curves are added as Figure 5 �� Minor Revisions Suggested Language and Grammar Rephrase awkward phrases: “Subjects who do not having ear deformity” → “Subjects without any ear deformities.”- Changed “Measurement was performed twice by two people” → “Each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers.”- Changed Perform a light grammar and clarity check across the manuscript.- Done all grammatical mistakes are corrected throughout the manuscript. Duplicate or Misplaced Text Table headers or descriptions appear to repeat on some pages (possibly due to PDF formatting).- Removed Check for repetitive statistical table text and ensure clean formatting before indexing.- Done Improve Figure Captions and Labels Figures 1–4 could use more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own.- Added more description to all the figures legends. Include scale markers where appropriate.- As measurements were not taken on images we can’t show the scale markers. In images we have shown from where-to-where measurements has been taken. Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults (18–25 years) and may not generalize across age, region, or ethnicity - Added in the abstract, discussion and conclusion Address Small Sample Size in Interpretation Issue : With just 40 participants, some results—like "perfect separation" in logistic regression—might be artifacts of overfitting. Required Action : Clearly state that results are preliminary and exploratory , and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors.- Added in limitations Include AUC Curves or Graphs for Sex Prediction Issue : AUC values are reported, but no visual ROC curve or regression diagnostics are shown. Required Action : Include graphical output of logistic regression model (e.g., ROC curve, classification plot) to visually support claims of predictive strength.- ROC curves are added as Figure 5 �� Minor Revisions Suggested Language and Grammar Rephrase awkward phrases: “Subjects who do not having ear deformity” → “Subjects without any ear deformities.”- Changed “Measurement was performed twice by two people” → “Each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers.”- Changed Perform a light grammar and clarity check across the manuscript.- Done all grammatical mistakes are corrected throughout the manuscript. Duplicate or Misplaced Text Table headers or descriptions appear to repeat on some pages (possibly due to PDF formatting).- Removed Check for repetitive statistical table text and ensure clean formatting before indexing.- Done Improve Figure Captions and Labels Figures 1–4 could use more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own.- Added more description to all the figures legends. Include scale markers where appropriate.- As measurements were not taken on images we can’t show the scale markers. In images we have shown from where-to-where measurements has been taken. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Agarwal J. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371386 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-371386 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 21 Mar 2025 Jolly Agarwal , ANATOMY, Government doon medical college, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371386 no ... Continue reading READ ALL no comments Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Anatomist, Osteology, Medical Education, Histology and Radiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Agarwal J. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371386 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-371386 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 22 Jan 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Sezgin N. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363729 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v1#referee-response-363729 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 04 Mar 2025 Nurdan Sezgin , Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363729 A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects. - ... Continue reading READ ALL A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects. - If the term "population" is in the title, 40 people is an unacceptable number. In this case, I do not see it possible to rewrite the study with new participants. Therefore, the word "population" should be removed from the study title. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Forensic anthropology, identification, age and sex estimation from facial images and ear images I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Sezgin N. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363729 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v1#referee-response-363729 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 17 Mar 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 17 Mar 2025 Author Response A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included Response:- Added 3 more new references and compared with ... Continue reading A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included Response:- Added 3 more new references and compared with the present study. - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects Response:- I have added few more points in conclusion to make it more informative. - If the term "population" is in the title, 40 people is an unacceptable number. In this case, I do not see it possible to rewrite the study with new participants. Therefore, the word "population" should be removed from the study title. Response:- I had removed the word population from the study title. A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included Response:- Added 3 more new references and compared with the present study. - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects Response:- I have added few more points in conclusion to make it more informative. - If the term "population" is in the title, 40 people is an unacceptable number. In this case, I do not see it possible to rewrite the study with new participants. Therefore, the word "population" should be removed from the study title. Response:- I had removed the word population from the study title. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 17 Mar 2025 Chandni Gupta , Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 17 Mar 2025 Author Response A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included Response:- Added 3 more new references and compared with ... Continue reading A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included Response:- Added 3 more new references and compared with the present study. - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects Response:- I have added few more points in conclusion to make it more informative. - If the term "population" is in the title, 40 people is an unacceptable number. In this case, I do not see it possible to rewrite the study with new participants. Therefore, the word "population" should be removed from the study title. Response:- I had removed the word population from the study title. A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included Response:- Added 3 more new references and compared with the present study. - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects Response:- I have added few more points in conclusion to make it more informative. - If the term "population" is in the title, 40 people is an unacceptable number. In this case, I do not see it possible to rewrite the study with new participants. Therefore, the word "population" should be removed from the study title. Response:- I had removed the word population from the study title. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Agarwal J and Agrawal A. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363735 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v1#referee-response-363735 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 13 Feb 2025 Jolly Agarwal , ANATOMY, Government doon medical college, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India Anurag Agrawal , Pulmonary Medicine, Government Doon Medical College, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363735 Summary – The present observational study focuses on evolution of stature and sexual dimorphism of external ear using various morphometric parameters and morphological features for forensic identification. The external ear can be used to evaluate sex and stature of person from ... Continue reading READ ALL Summary – The present observational study focuses on evolution of stature and sexual dimorphism of external ear using various morphometric parameters and morphological features for forensic identification. The external ear can be used to evaluate sex and stature of person from various ear measurements which is very useful for forensic anthropologist. Major points – The total 40 individuals were taken for the study in which 20 were male and 20 were female. The age of individual was 18-25 years. Linear and angular measurements of external ear were taken, various morphological parameters of ear were also noted. The most common shape in both male and female was oval. The free ear lobe was most common in both male and female. The most common shape of ear lobe in male was arched while in female triangular. In both male and female, the helix was concave marginal. The most common shape of ear tragus in male is round while in females it was long. Darwin’s tubercle was enlarged in both male and female. The various morphometric parameters of right and left side like lobe height, ear inclination angle, anti-helical take off angle, concha mastoid angle was statistically significant. The morphological ear length in females of right and left side showed statistically significant difference. In males, the ear inclination angle, concha mastoid angle of right and left side showed statistically significant difference. Gender wises most of the morphometric parameters of ear were statistically significant, therefore sexual dimorphism can be determined. In females significant positive correlation between height and ear inclination angle were found therefore ear parameter can be used as predictor of stature of female. Minor points – Height and any of ear measurements were not statistically significant in males. The sample size of the study is less which is mentioned in limitation of study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Anatomist, Osteology, Medical Education, Histology and Radiology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Agarwal J and Agrawal A. Reviewer Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363735 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v1#referee-response-363735 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 22 Jan 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 3 (revision) 15 May 25 read read Version 2 (revision) 17 Mar 25 read read read read Version 1 22 Jan 25 read read Jolly Agarwal , Government doon medical college, Dehradun, India Anurag Agrawal , Government Doon Medical College, Dehradun, India Nurdan Sezgin , Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey Adil Asghar , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India Anyanwu Godson Emeka , Kampala International University, Ishaka, Uganda Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sezgin N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Jun 2025 | for Version 3 Nurdan Sezgin , Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sezgin N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors' revisions are deemed sufficient. There is no problem in indexing. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Forensic anthropology, identification, age and sex estimation from facial images and ear images I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Sezgin N. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385019) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3#referee-response-385019 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Agarwal J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 May 2025 | for Version 3 Jolly Agarwal , ANATOMY, Government doon medical college, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Agarwal J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions No further comments Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Anatomist, Osteology, Medical Education, Histology and Radiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Agarwal J. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181180.r385016) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3#referee-response-385016 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sezgin N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 Apr 2025 | for Version 2 Nurdan Sezgin , Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sezgin N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions There are some points that need attention in the study: 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can be increased. 2. It may be more meaningful to express measurements with anthropometric points (landmarks) when defining them. In fact, this marking can be done in the images. 3. Working with 40 ear samples can be considered sufficient in terms of descriptive statistics. However, when comparing between sexes, the number is insufficient. 4. A table is given regarding the statistical significance of ear measurements, but it is not given which measurement has which value in female and male. Including this information is important in the following respect: if the sex difference in ear measurements seems large, a sample group of 40 people can be considered sufficient. However, if the difference is small or at an average level, the number of samples are small (I am evaluating it for 40 people). 5. Therefore increasing the sample size of the study and making a new statistical calculation will both take time and reduce the motivation of the researchers. So, the title of this study can be updated as follows: If the study will continue with a larger sample, "pilot study" should be added. If this study will remain with 40 people and a new, larger database will not be used, it is recommended to update it by adding "preliminary observational study". Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Forensic anthropology, identification, age and sex estimation from facial images and ear images I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 15 May 2025 Chandni Gupta, Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India 1. The number of current publications in the references can be increased. Ear morphology studies have attracted more attention in recent years. Therefore, the number of publications after 2020 can be increased. - Response: Done added. 2. It may be more meaningful to express measurements with anthropometric points (landmarks) when defining them. In fact, this marking can be done in the images. Response - Added the landmarks in the images. 3. Working with 40 ear samples can be considered sufficient in terms of descriptive statistics. However, when comparing between sexes, the number is insufficient. Response - This sample size we got from our statistics department by seeing from previous studies as we were doing both morphometric and morphological study. 4. A table is given regarding the statistical significance of ear measurements, but it is not given which measurement has which value in female and male. Including this information is important in the following respect: if the sex difference in ear measurements seems large, a sample group of 40 people can be considered sufficient. However, if the difference is small or at an average level, the number of samples are small (I am evaluating it for 40 people). Response - Added the values of measurement in table 4. And Sex difference is seen in all parameters except lobe height (right: p-value = 0.970, left: p-value = 0.162), concha width (left: p-value = 0.071), tragus length (right: p-value = 0.135, left: p-value = 0.316), ear attachment length (right: p-value = 0.318, left: p-value = 0.335), ear inclination angle (right: p-value = 0.053, left: p-value = 0.059), and concha mastoid angle (right: p-value = 0.753, left: p-value = 0.218). All other parameters were found to be significantly different, with p-values less than 0.05. 5. Therefore increasing the sample size of the study and making a new statistical calculation will both take time and reduce the motivation of the researchers. So, the title of this study can be updated as follows: If the study will continue with a larger sample, "pilot study" should be added. If this study will remain with 40 people and a new, larger database will not be used, it is recommended to update it by adding "preliminary observational study". Response: Added in title “Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study” View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Sezgin N. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371387) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-371387 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Emeka A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 Apr 2025 | for Version 2 Anyanwu Godson Emeka , Kampala International University, Ishaka, Uganda 0 Views copyright © 2025 Emeka A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The focus of this observational study was the morphology and morphometry of the human external ear studied in 40 young adults (20 males, 20 females) aged 18–25. Also studied was the reliability of generated data for sex determination and stature estimation in the scope of forensic purposes. The study used standardized measurements and morphological assessment of different ear features (lobe type, tragus shape, helix form, Darwin’s tubercle) and revealed significant sexual dimorphism and correlations to height, as well as the right ear lobe width and ear inclination angle as potential reliable predictors. The results indicate the forensic significance of external ear characteristics in personal identification. Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation The two sentences in the background of the abstract are awkwardly phrased with some redundancy . The word “Therefore” is used twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant , and this disrupts the flow. The awkward phrasing of the sentence … “. this study aimed to evaluate the stature and sexual dimorphism of the external ear” is slightly misinforming because the ear is not attributed with stature and sexual dimophism, rather the stature and gender of individuals can be estimated from its features. i have problem with method part of the abstract, i feel the study design [eg cross sectional , longitudinal etc] and recruiting process [ eg simple random, purposive etc] would have been captured very briefly here. Suggestion “This was a cross-sectional observational study involving ……. recruited from ………… using purposive sampling/ simple random technique. The statement where you used the word “like” as captured in this sentence “18 measurements were taken like ear length and width, lobule height and width …..’ does not clearly connote you measured these parameters, you are indirectly saying you measured parameters that are similar to …. Pls recast sentence In this sentence “A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. “ you said that a digital caliper was used to measure all parameters, when this is not correct, because the angles are part of the parameters studied and you measured them with goniometers. Pls recast sentence I have concerns with the current results paragraph because it lacks quantitative depth and clarity in highlighting statistical significance, distribution patterns, and key findings that strengthen forensic value. Your conclusion is vague and lacks scope and specificity. In your revision summarize which specific measurements were most useful (e.g., right earlobe width, ear inclination angle), as identified in your results. The two sentences below are from your introduction, while one is in the present tense, the other is in the past. Pls recast to maintain consistency This statement is an over-statement pls recast: “To date, no study has been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population’ Methods section lacks coherence and feels more like a list of procedures than a well-structured narrative. The section reads like disconnected bullet points rather than a continuous, organized description of the research process. Also the narrative jumps between ethical clearance, reporting guidelines, study period, and sampling criteria without transition or thematic grouping. The same observation made in 11 above is also noted in the discussion sections of this work Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? No Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise My study encompasses spine biomechanics, obesity-associated musculoskeletal problems, and anatomical risk determinants in orthopedics and neurodegenerative diseases. I am recognized for promoting forensic morphometry and anatomical teaching through creative tools, including the award-winning Anatomy Adventure board game. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 28 May 2025 Chandni Gupta, Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India Title as it is looks a bit clumsy, I suggest: Morphological and Morphometric Analysis of the Human External Ear: Implications for Sex and Stature Estimation- Changed the title The two sentences in the background of the abstract are awkwardly phrased with some redundancy . The word “Therefore” is used twice in consecutive sentences, which is redundant , and this disrupts the flow. The awkward phrasing of the sentence … “. this study aimed to evaluate the stature and sexual dimorphism of the external ear” is slightly misinforming because the ear is not attributed with stature and sexual dimophism, rather the stature and gender of individuals can be estimated from its features.-Corrected the sentence. i have problem with method part of the abstract, i feel the study design [eg cross sectional , longitudinal etc] and recruiting process [ eg simple random, purposive etc] would have been captured very briefly here. Suggestion “This was a cross-sectional observational study involving ……. recruited from ………… using purposive sampling/ simple random technique.- Added The statement where you used the word “like” as captured in this sentence “18 measurements were taken like ear length and width, lobule height and width …..’ does not clearly connote you measured these parameters, you are indirectly saying you measured parameters that are similar to …. Pls recast sentence- Changed In this sentence “A digital Vernier caliper was used to measure all parameters. The angles were measured using a goniometer. “ you said that a digital caliper was used to measure all parameters, when this is not correct, because the angles are part of the parameters studied and you measured them with goniometers. Pls recast sentence- Corrected the sentence I have concerns with the current results paragraph because it lacks quantitative depth and clarity in highlighting statistical significance, distribution patterns, and key findings that strengthen forensic value.- Added Your conclusion is vague and lacks scope and specificity. In your revision summarize which specific measurements were most useful (e.g., right earlobe width, ear inclination angle), as identified in your results.- Added The two sentences below are from your introduction, while one is in the present tense, the other is in the past. Pls recast to maintain consistency- Changed This statement is an over-statement pls recast: “To date, no study has been conducted on human ear morphometry and morphology in the South Indian Population’- Changed Methods section lacks coherence and feels more like a list of procedures than a well-structured narrative. The section reads like disconnected bullet points rather than a continuous, organized description of the research process. Also the narrative jumps between ethical clearance, reporting guidelines, study period, and sampling criteria without transition or thematic grouping.- This was made according to Strobe guidelines. And the template was giving from the F1000 journal, so we maintained it. The same observation made in 11 above is also noted in the discussion sections of this work- Corrected the discussion and I have discussed the previous results with our study and added why they are similar or different from our study and added few more studies. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Emeka AG. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374367) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-374367 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Asghar A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 25 Apr 2025 | for Version 2 Adil Asghar , All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Asghar A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults (18–25 years) and may not generalize across age, region, or ethnicity . Address Small Sample Size in Interpretation Issue : With just 40 participants, some results—like "perfect separation" in logistic regression—might be artifacts of overfitting. Required Action : Clearly state that results are preliminary and exploratory , and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors. Include AUC Curves or Graphs for Sex Prediction Issue : AUC values are reported, but no visual ROC curve or regression diagnostics are shown. Required Action : Include graphical output of logistic regression model (e.g., ROC curve, classification plot) to visually support claims of predictive strength. �� Minor Revisions Suggested Language and Grammar Rephrase awkward phrases: “Subjects who do not having ear deformity” → “Subjects without any ear deformities.” “Measurement was performed twice by two people” → “Each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers.” Perform a light grammar and clarity check across the manuscript. Duplicate or Misplaced Text Table headers or descriptions appear to repeat on some pages (possibly due to PDF formatting). Check for repetitive statistical table text and ensure clean formatting before indexing. Improve Figure Captions and Labels Figures 1–4 could use more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own. Include scale markers where appropriate. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 04 May 2025 Chandni Gupta, Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India Clarify Limitation Regarding Generalizability Issue : Although “population” was removed from the title, the findings are still generalized in the text. Required Action : Re-emphasize that results are applicable only to young South Indian adults (18–25 years) and may not generalize across age, region, or ethnicity - Added in the abstract, discussion and conclusion Address Small Sample Size in Interpretation Issue : With just 40 participants, some results—like "perfect separation" in logistic regression—might be artifacts of overfitting. Required Action : Clearly state that results are preliminary and exploratory , and that larger studies are needed to validate these regression models and confirm predictors.- Added in limitations Include AUC Curves or Graphs for Sex Prediction Issue : AUC values are reported, but no visual ROC curve or regression diagnostics are shown. Required Action : Include graphical output of logistic regression model (e.g., ROC curve, classification plot) to visually support claims of predictive strength.- ROC curves are added as Figure 5 �� Minor Revisions Suggested Language and Grammar Rephrase awkward phrases: “Subjects who do not having ear deformity” → “Subjects without any ear deformities.”- Changed “Measurement was performed twice by two people” → “Each measurement was independently performed twice by two observers.”- Changed Perform a light grammar and clarity check across the manuscript.- Done all grammatical mistakes are corrected throughout the manuscript. Duplicate or Misplaced Text Table headers or descriptions appear to repeat on some pages (possibly due to PDF formatting).- Removed Check for repetitive statistical table text and ensure clean formatting before indexing.- Done Improve Figure Captions and Labels Figures 1–4 could use more descriptive captions to be interpretable on their own.- Added more description to all the figures legends. Include scale markers where appropriate.- As measurements were not taken on images we can’t show the scale markers. In images we have shown from where-to-where measurements has been taken. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Asghar A. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r374370) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-374370 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Agarwal J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Mar 2025 | for Version 2 Jolly Agarwal , ANATOMY, Government doon medical college, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Agarwal J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions no comments Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Anatomist, Osteology, Medical Education, Histology and Radiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Agarwal J. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.179146.r371386) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v2#referee-response-371386 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sezgin N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 04 Mar 2025 | for Version 1 Nurdan Sezgin , Kütahya Health Sciences University, Kütahya, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2025 Sezgin N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects. - If the term "population" is in the title, 40 people is an unacceptable number. In this case, I do not see it possible to rewrite the study with new participants. Therefore, the word "population" should be removed from the study title. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Forensic anthropology, identification, age and sex estimation from facial images and ear images I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 17 Mar 2025 Chandni Gupta, Department of Anatomy, Katsurba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India A current issue has been addressed. I suggest updates on a few issues: - Not enough current publications have been included Response:- Added 3 more new references and compared with the present study. - Conclusion is not satisfactory enough. I attribute this to the small number of subjects Response:- I have added few more points in conclusion to make it more informative. - If the term "population" is in the title, 40 people is an unacceptable number. In this case, I do not see it possible to rewrite the study with new participants. Therefore, the word "population" should be removed from the study title. Response:- I had removed the word population from the study title. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Sezgin N. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363729) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v1#referee-response-363729 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Agarwal J et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 13 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Jolly Agarwal , ANATOMY, Government doon medical college, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India Anurag Agrawal , Pulmonary Medicine, Government Doon Medical College, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 0 Views copyright © 2025 Agarwal J et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Summary – The present observational study focuses on evolution of stature and sexual dimorphism of external ear using various morphometric parameters and morphological features for forensic identification. The external ear can be used to evaluate sex and stature of person from various ear measurements which is very useful for forensic anthropologist. Major points – The total 40 individuals were taken for the study in which 20 were male and 20 were female. The age of individual was 18-25 years. Linear and angular measurements of external ear were taken, various morphological parameters of ear were also noted. The most common shape in both male and female was oval. The free ear lobe was most common in both male and female. The most common shape of ear lobe in male was arched while in female triangular. In both male and female, the helix was concave marginal. The most common shape of ear tragus in male is round while in females it was long. Darwin’s tubercle was enlarged in both male and female. The various morphometric parameters of right and left side like lobe height, ear inclination angle, anti-helical take off angle, concha mastoid angle was statistically significant. The morphological ear length in females of right and left side showed statistically significant difference. In males, the ear inclination angle, concha mastoid angle of right and left side showed statistically significant difference. Gender wises most of the morphometric parameters of ear were statistically significant, therefore sexual dimorphism can be determined. In females significant positive correlation between height and ear inclination angle were found therefore ear parameter can be used as predictor of stature of female. Minor points – Height and any of ear measurements were not statistically significant in males. The sample size of the study is less which is mentioned in limitation of study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Anatomist, Osteology, Medical Education, Histology and Radiology We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Agarwal J and Agrawal A. Peer Review Report For: Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear with Its Implications in Sex and Stature Estimation -– A Preliminary Observational Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :119 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.176552.r363735) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v1#referee-response-363735 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Morphological And Morphometric analysis of...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Acharya S et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119", templates : { twitter : "Morphological And Morphometric analysis of Human External Ear.... Acharya S et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-119/v3" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/160629/181180") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "181180"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "388416": 0, "387084": 0, "387151": 0, "363727": 0, "363726": 0, "363733": 0, "363732": 0, "387159": 0, "363735": 18, "363734": 0, "363729": 17, "363728": 0, "363731": 0, "387154": 0, "363730": 0, "374365": 0, "374364": 0, "374367": 11, "374366": 0, "374369": 0, "374368": 0, "374371": 0, "374370": 16, "387829": 0, "387828": 0, "388415": 0, "388414": 0, "385017": 0, "385016": 9, "371387": 10, "385019": 9, "371386": 9, "385018": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "43c92cc9-8f20-47d3-89c9-add89df101cd"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });