Dermatoglyphics: The Future of Screening Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus?

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-16

This study found that thumb fingerprint patterns, specifically loop prevalence, may help differentiate between type 2 diabetics and healthy individuals.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-16 · read from full text

The paper discusses dermatoglyphics as a potential future screening approach for type 2 diabetes mellitus, focusing on the concept rather than presenting detailed study methods or results in the provided text. Because the available content is largely templated (license/open-access boilerplate) and does not describe the study population, methods, key findings, or explicit limitations, there is insufficient information to summarize the evidence base from the paper itself. The paper also does not provide any clear caveats about accuracy, validation, or generalizability in the text provided. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dermatoglyphics is a very old technique utilized for identity and distinguishing purposes, as it is firmly related to genetics. Researchers are attempting to utilize fingerprints to diagnose various diseases. This study was aimed at determining the percent distribution of fingerprint patterns and to find out any potential variation between the fingerprints of diabetic and healthy individuals. METHODS: A comparative study was carried out on 200 individuals at Diabetic Clinic of a tertiary care hospital. 100 participants were patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus type 2 (cases) and 100 healthy individuals (controls) were enrolled. Fingerprints of participants were obtained with care on white sheets following the "Cummins and Midlo" method and then categorized as whorls, loops, and arches using Henry's categorization methodology. Fingerprint patterns were compared among both groups, and statistical analysis was done to compare variations. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 57.5 ± 9.2 years, and there were 48% males and 52% females. Whorl patterns were found to be more common in both cases and controls (56.2% and 60.8%), followed by loops (38.8% and 31.6%), and then arches (7.6% and 5%). Overall, we found that loops were more prevalent in all fingers of diabetics except the thumbs (57%), where loops were significantly lower (40%). Similarly, whorls were more common in the fingers of healthy individuals (53%), except in the thumbs, where whorls were less prevalent (42%). CONCLUSION: Present investigation proposes that finger patterns in thumbs can be helpful in differentiating between diabetics and non-diabetics, however, it is difficult to use Henry’s classification for mass screening of diabetes mellitus, but there is a beam of hope that further patterns identification and itemized investigations can help us use dermatoglyphics in screening of different diseases.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00