| Literature DB >> 21423637 |
Duong Duc Pham1, Jun-Hyeong Do, Boncho Ku, Hae Jung Lee, Honggie Kim, Jong Yeol Kim.
Abstract
Facial characteristics may provide reliable information giving an insight into the inner nature of an individual. This study examines the differences in widely used facial metrics, including cheek-to-jaw width ratio (CJWR), width-to-height ratio (WHR), perimeter-to-area ratio (PAR), and facial masculinity indexes across Sasang constitutional types, to investigate the association between these facial cues and body mass index (BMI) and develop a predictive model for Sasang typing. 2D images of 911 participants were analyzed. The results indicated that TaeEum (TE) type generally has a squarer face, with the male TE type having a squarer and wider face than that of both SoYang (SY) and SoEum (SE) types. Male TE type has longer eyes than that of the SE type, and the lower face of the female TE type is longer than that of the SY type. PAR, WHR, CJWR, and eye size had associations with BMI, and the magnitude of correlation of CJWR in Korean men were twofold higher than that of the Caucasian and African men. BMI and facial metrics including PAR, WHR, CJWR, and eye size were good predictors for TE type, and the most parsimonious model for TE typing included BMI and CJWR with high predictive performances.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21423637 PMCID: PMC3057559 DOI: 10.1155/2011/749209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Points used in the calculation of facial metric measurements.
Demographic characteristic, anthropometric profile, and facial metrics in twenties groups.
| M20s | F20s | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TE ( | SE ( | SY ( |
| TE ( | SE ( | SY ( |
| |
| Age (y) | 24.0 (2.4) | 23.4 (2.4) | 23.2 (2.5) | .074 | 21.4 (1.7)b | 23.0 (2.4)a | 22.4 (2.0)a | .000 |
| Height (m) | 175.4 (5.2) | 173.9 (5.3) | 174.6 (5.2) | .142. | 161.6 (4.9) | 160.2 (5.1) | 162.2 (5.2) | .096 |
| Weight (kg) | 76.1 (10.4)a | 62.8 (6.4)c | 67.6 (6.3)b | .000 | 58.6 (6.9)a | 50.4 (6.6)c | 52.6 (5.9)b | .000 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.1 (3.4)a | 20.7 (2.1)c | 22.3 (2.0)b | .000 | 19.35 (2.28)a | 16.63 (2.18)c | 17.38 (1.94)b | .000 |
| PAR | 0.045 (0.002)b | 0.046 (0.002)a | 0.046(0.0018)a | .002 | 0.047 (0.002) | 0.048 (0.002) | 0.048 (0.002) | .115 |
| WHR | 2.16 (0.14)a | 2.08 (0.13)b | 2.11 (0.14)b | .002 | 2.18 (0.13) | 2.14 (0.13) | 2.15 (0.13) | .169 |
| CJWR | 1.13 (0.05)b | 1.17 (0.05)a | 1.16 (0.05)a | .000 | 1.16 (0.04)b | 1.19 (0.05)a | 1.18 (0.05)a | .001 |
| Eye size (mm) | 32.60 (1.79)a | 31.66 (1.80)b | 32.19 (1.72)ab | .007 | 31.72 (1.73) | 31.16 (1.77) | 31.52 (1.60) | .161 |
| LF/FH | 0.63 (0.03) | 0.62 (0.03) | 0.62 (0.02) | .185 | 0.61 (0.02)a | 0.60 (0.02)ab | 0.60 (0.02)b | .037 |
| FW/LF | 1.21 (0.06) | 1.19 (0.07) | 1.19 (0.06) | .162 | 1.23 (0.05)b | 1.23 (0.05)b | 1.25 (0.05)a | .022 |
| EH mean (mm) | 16.58 (2.11) | 16.22 (1.86) | 16.63 (1.68) | .435 | 17.92 (1.85) | 17.82 (1.97) | 18.04 (2.06) | .803 |
Value is presented as mean (SD). P value: ANOVA test result.
a,b,cSignificant difference between groups in which value descends respectively by Duncan test.
M20s: male-twenties group; F20s: female-twenties group, TE: TaeEum type, SE: SoEum type, and SY: SoYang type.
Demographic characteristic, anthropometric profile, and facial metrics in sixties groups.
| M60s | F60s | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TE ( | SE ( | SY ( |
| TE ( | SE ( | SY ( |
| |
| Age (y) | 65.0 (3.4) | 65.5 (3.6) | 65.8 (3.3) | .339 | 64.9 (3.1) | 63.8 (2.9) | 64.1 (3.0) | .086 |
| Height (m) | 166.8 (5.9) | 166.4 (5.5) | 165.5 (5.2) | .229 | 154.6 (4.8) | 153.3 (4.7) | 153.4 (4.4) | .133 |
| Weight (kg) | 73.2 (8.3)a | 60.5 (8.0)c | 66.2 (7.9)b | .000 | 63.7 (6.0)a | 53.1 (6.1)c | 57.9 (6.3)b | .000 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.18 (2.74)a | 19.99 (2.66)c | 21.88 (2.60)b | .000 | 21.03 (1.97)a | 17.54 (2.03)c | 19.13 (2.08)b | .000 |
| PAR | 0.045 (0.002) | 0.045 (0.002) | 0.045 (0.002) | .789 | 0.047 (0.002)b | 0.048 (0.003)a | 0.047 (0.003)ab | .018 |
| WHR | 2.08 (0.14)a | 1.99 (0.13)b | 2.02 (0.11)b | .000 | 2.13 (0.15) | 2.12 (0.13) | 2.12 (0.16) | .951 |
| CJWR | 1.06 (0.04)c | 1.11 (0.05)a | 1.09 (0.04)b | .000 | 1.07 (0.04)b | 1.10 (0.04)a | 1.09 (0.04)a | .000 |
| Eye size (mm) | 29.62 (1.96)a | 28.70 (2.34)b | 29.06 (2.03)ab | .032 | 28.99 (1.86) | 28.22 (2.40) | 28.90 (1.94) | .059 |
| LF/FH | 0.62 (0.02) | 0.61 (0.02) | 0.62 (0.02) | .718 | 0.63 (0.02)a | 0.62 (0.02)b | 0.62 (0.02)b | .003 |
| FW/LF | 1.21 (0.06) | 1.19 (0.06) | 1.20 (0.05) | .085 | 1.21 (0.06) | 1.22 (0.05) | 1.21 (0.06) | .802 |
| EH mean (mm) | 18.29 (2.57) | 17.72 (3.12) | 18.28 (2.98) | .464 | 20.28 (3.18) | 19.90 (2.87) | 19.47 (2.76) | .200 |
Value is presented as mean (SD). P value: ANOVA test result.
a,b,cSignificant difference between groups in which value descends respectively by Duncan test.
M20s: male-twenties group; F20s: female-twenties group, TE: TaeEum type, SE: SoEum type, and SY: SoYang type.
Correlation between BMI and facial cues.
| 20sr | 60sr |
Coetzee et al. [ |
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | |
| PAR | −0.30*** | − 0.23*** | − 0.18** | − 0.28*** | − 0.22** | − 0.12 | 0.39 | 0.25 | 0.18 | 0.57 |
| WHR | 0.30*** | 0.28*** | 0.28*** | 0.06 | 0.17* | 0.36*** | 0.16 | 0.36 | 0.82 | 2.43 |
| CJWR | − 0.40*** | − 0.29*** | − 0.40*** | − 0.27*** | − 0.20** | − 0.29*** | 0.03 | 1 | 1 | 0.82 |
| Eye size | 0.29*** | 0.26*** | 0.27*** | 0.21** | 0.82 | 0.57 | ||||
| LF/FH | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.29*** | ||||||
| FW/LF | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.16* | 0.052 | ||||||
| EH mean | 0.05 | 0.16* | 0.11 | 0.12 | ||||||
rPearson's correlation coefficient; *P < .05, **P < .01, ***P < .001. 20s: twenties group; 60s: sixties group.
P value calculated by Fisher's z transformation approach, in which P < .05 indicates the significant difference of magnitude of two correlation coefficients.
BMI and facial metrics in association with TE types: logistic regression analysis.
| Comparison unit | M20s | M60s | F20s | F60s | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (CI 95%) |
| OR (CI 95%) |
| OR (CI 95%) |
| OR (CI 95%) |
| ||
| BMI | 1 | 1.63 (1.42–1.88) | 0.81 | 1.52 (1.33–1.74) | 0.78 | 1.62 (1.39–1.89) | 0.77 | 1.79 (1.51–2.11) | 0.82 |
| PAR | 0.002sd | 0.61 (0.46–0.81) | 0.63 | 0.91 (0.70–1.20) | 0.53 | 0.75 (0.57–0.99) | 0.58 | 0.72 (0.54–0.95) | 0.58 |
| WHR | 0.14sd | 1.60 (1.21–2.12) | 0.64 | 1.74 (1.28– 2.35) | 0.65 | 1.28 (0.98–1.67) | 0.57 | 1.04 (0.8–1.35) | 0.54 |
| CJWR | 0.05sd | 0.45 (0.33–0.63) | 0.69 | 0.35 (0.24–0.51) | 0.74 | 0.59 (0.44–0.80) | 0.64 | 0.52 (0.38–0.70) | 0.67 |
| Eye size | 1 | 1.22 (1.05–1.42) | 0.60 | 1.18 (1.03– 1.35) | 0.61 | 1.13 (0.96–1.32) | 0.56 | 1.09 (0.96–1.25) | 0.55 |
| LF-FH | 0.02sd | 1.27 (0.98–1.66) | 0.56 | 1.09 (0.83–1.43) | 0.53 | 1.42 (1.08–1.86) | 0.60 | 1.57 (1.19–2.07) | 0.62 |
| FW-LF | 0.06sd | 1.29 (0.99–1.69) | 0.58 | 1.30 (0.98–1.71) | 0.57 | 0.82 (0.63–1.07) | 0.45 | 0.95 (0.73–1.24) | 0.48 |
| EH mean | 1 | 1.03 (0.9–1.19) | 0.51 | 1.03 (0.94–1.13) | 0.52 | 0.99 (0.86–1.13) | 0.51 | 1.08 (0.98–1.18) | 0.57 |
M20s: male-twenties group; F20s: female-twenties group; M60s: male-sixties group; F60s: female-sixties group.
sdThe comparison unit was adjusted to be close to the standard deviation of each potential predictive factors.
Figure 2Predicted probability of TE type in twenties men (a), sixties men (b), twenties women (c), and sixties women (d) for a given BMI and CJWR.