Facial Soft Tissue Thickness Values for Romanian Adult Population

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present valuable information on facial soft tissue thickness for a specific population. These are really important and rare data obtained by the traditional "needle" method. However, the manuscript contains some errors that should be noted and clarified. Please see my comments and recommendations below:

1.      Points vs. landmarks - I suggest using landmarks throughout the study

2.      Gender vs. sex - gender is a social construct and sex refers to the biological identification of the participant, so I suggest using the term "sex".

3.      I suggest changing "men" and "women" to "males" and "females," respectively, to reflect modern standards in forensics and to account for possible non-heteronormative identities among participants.

4.      The introduction lacks background information on the importance of facial tissue in forensics, discussion of different measurement methods - needle, Usg, CT - invasive vs. non-invasive method.

5.      Study lot - use of the term study sample is more appropriate or study section.

6.      How was rigor mortis assessed? Was it considered in the study? Could this affect the data obtained? Please, discus.

7.      How did you measure the weight of cadavers required for the BMI index? Please provide the equation.

8.      If you used a manual calliper with needle, did you follow any specific study? This should be clearly stated and discussed.

9.      I suggest referring to the specific statistical tests for normality, sex differences, and differences between BMI categories in the Material and Method section, Statistical Analysis subsection (including information on the statistical program R). In the Results section, the authors could then refer directly to the results obtained without the need of mention the specific tests.

10.  In Tables 2 and 3 - "Median IQR", use it in the first row together with "Characteristics" and then there is no need to repeat it in each parameter. The column "N" referring to sample size should be crossed out as the following columns (total, females and males or BMI categories) indicate the number of cadavers/participants in relation to the observed variable.

11.  I suggest revising the heading for Table 2, e.g., Descriptive characteristics of parameters studied in relation to sex, and also for Table 3, e.g., Descriptive characteristics of parameters studied in relation to BMI categories.

12.  Please do not indicate that there were statistically significant sex differences for left mid zygomatic point. All p-values less than or equal to 0.05 are considered statistically significant. In your case, the p-value is 0.057 (=0.06), although it is close to 0.05, it is not significant.

13.  Please refer to 0.05 as the significance level (alpha), not the 0.05 threshold.

14.  In Figure 4, the word gender is misspelled, and sex should be use instead.

15.  Figures 4 and 5 are valuable illustrations for comparing the means of the FSTT between different populations. At first glance, the differences appear to be significant in many cases, but have they been statistically tested? Can you identify for which of the observed landmarks there are significant differences in terms of geographic origin?

16.  Please explain why you compared the BMI categories for the total sample, regardless of sex, rather than for each sex separately. The p-values in Table 3 refer to the overall differences in observed parameters between BMI categories. When significant results are reported, it should be made clear between which two categories the differences exist, e.g., hyposthenic vs. normal, normal vs. hypersthenic, hypo vs. hyper. Of course, this should be clear without testing, but when presenting scientific results, the results should be explained and discussed in detail.

17.  Regarding the terms related to habitus/constitutional type. Since the present study deals only with BMI, I suggest not using the categories hyper/hyposthenic (it is not "-stemic" but -stenic, as indicated in Table 3 or elsewhere in the text). I would suggest using the terms underweight, normal weight, and overweight. These are directly related to BMI. When considering habitus/constitution type, other anthropometric characteristics such as skin folds and other body proportions should also be included and considered.

18.  What is the point of correlating numerical variables? Please, discus.

19.  Line 275 in the discussion - misspelled "nasio" - should be nasion

20.  In the discussion section, the position of the measurement should be discussed (horizontal vs sitting/vertical). In the present study, which was done on cadavers, it is obvious that the measurements were taken in a horizontal position (please also mention this in the Material and Method section). I understand that this is beyond the scope of the paper, but it should at least be discussed.

21.  Since the age range of the sample studied is quite large, the age differences should be explained in the limitations section of the study. Age is an important factor affecting FSTT scores. Although this is beyond the scope of the study, it should at least be mentioned and clarified in the discussion section.

Despite all these comments, which I believe will improve the quality of the article, I recommend the paper for publication after thorough revision.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We would like to thank you for the thoughtful comments on our manuscript, applsci-2356056, entitled " Facial soft tissue thickness values for Romanian adult population". We appreciate reviewers’ comments and are pleased that the reviewers found merit in the manuscript. Attached is a revised manuscript that we hope you find responsive to your concerns. We address these comments and highlight the changes in the manuscript. Below we provide a detailed description of the changes included in response to each comment.

Respectfully, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the paper is not well structured, particularly the Material and Methods section and the process of statistical analysis which is disseminated between the Results and Discussion sections. The statistical methods have also to be included in the abstract. The abstract has to follow the same structure that a scientific paper: introduction, objectives, material, morphometric methods, statistic test, results and discussion. In the Material and Methods section, the authors should describe both the morphometric methods and the statistical methods applied. These methods should not be described in the Results section not in the Discussion section. In the Material and Methods section, the sample has to be described just once, indicating the number of males and females, and why they were chosen. Following to this, the morphometric methods and the 12 landmarks should be explained (It would be appreciated if the authors added a Figure pointing out these landmarks).  Later, the statistical methods applied and why they were applied should be clearly explained. The importance of the statistical methodology is not in the software used but in the test applied and why they were applied. What are the authors looking for when they apply each of these statistical tests?  The authors should clearly explain the process of analysis. Why they use a non-parametric test instead a Student T test? Is it due to a lack of a normal distribution of the variables? In addition, in the paper there is lack of some information as for example the approval number given by the Ethic Committee to their study. In the table captions, there is no indication about the meaning of “N, M, F and the statistical test applied. The significant “p” value should be highlighted by, for example, an asterisk.

Gender is a social term. The biological term is sex

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the thoughtful comments on our manuscript, applsci-2356056, entitled " Facial soft tissue thickness values for Romanian adult population". We appreciate reviewers’ comments and are pleased that the reviewers found merit in the manuscript. Attached is a revised manuscript that we hope you find responsive to your concerns. We address these comments and highlight the changes in the manuscript. Below we provide a detailed description of the changes included in response to each comment.

Respectfully, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

the study presented provides a very useful database for the study of the sector. on the other hand, it does not provide all the tools to make it understandable to a wider audience.

In particular, the data collected on anthropometric measurements are certainly fundamental for the facial reconstruction of skeletonized persons of Romanian origin. However, considering that Romania is a multiethnic country, a further subdivision by origin and ethnicity would have been more useful so that these data could be integrated into more general and less localised databases.

This aspect can certainly be further explored in future studies to make more useful a discipline that, despite its limitations, can prove fundamentally useful for the recognition of bodies with unknown identities.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for the thoughtful comments on our manuscript, applsci-2356056, entitled " Facial soft tissue thickness values for Romanian adult population". We appreciate reviewers’ comments and are pleased that the reviewers found merit in the manuscript. Attached is a revised manuscript that we hope you find responsive to your concerns. We address these comments and highlight the changes in the manuscript. Below we provide a detailed description of the changes included in response to each comment.

Respectfully, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has greatly improved; however, the Discussion section should be better developed. The current Discussion is a newly explanation of the results, in this case a detailed explanation. However, The Discussion should tell us (short and clearly) what important things has been revelated by the results and what differences and similitudes the results have with other studies. 

In line 380 it is said "It is the Hispanic race has its say and specific population differences are observed". The erm "race" is not Biologically accepted. It has to be changed to population group. In addition, there is not a "Hispanic population" in Spain. There is a Spanish population constituted by Spaniards. The Spanish population belong to the Caucasic group or Caucasic population. The Spanish population is also classified as Mediterranean population (a populational subgroup of the Caucasics) together with Greek and Italian (in South Europe). The term “Hispanic” is used for American populations such as Colombians, Ecuadorians, Argentinians etc.

The paper has greatly improved; however, the Discussion section should be better developed. The current Discussion is a newly explanation of the results, in this case a detailed explanation. However, The Discussion should tell us (short and clearly) what important things has been revelated by the results. 

In line 380 it is said "It is the Hispanic race has its say and specific population differences are observed". The erm "race" is not Biologically accepted. It has to be changed to population group. In addition, there is not a "Hispanic population" in Spain. There is a Spanish population constituted by Spaniards. The Spanish population belong to the Caucasic group or Caucasic population. The Spanish population is also classified as Mediterranean population (a populational subgroup of the Caucasics) together with Greek and Italian (in South Europe). The term “Hispanic” is used for American populations such as Colombians, Ecuadorians, Argentinians etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We would like to thank you for the thoughtful comments on our manuscript, applsci-2356056, entitled " Facial soft tissue thickness values for Romanian adult population". We appreciate reviewers’ comments and are pleased that the reviewers found merit in the manuscript. Attached is a revised manuscript that we hope you find responsive to your concerns. We address these comments and highlight the changes in the manuscript. Below we provide a detailed description of the changes included in response to each comment.

Respectfully, 

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf