↓ Skip to main content

Validation of digit-length ratio (2D:4D) assessments on the basis of DXA-derived hand scans

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of digit-length ratio (2D:4D) assessments on the basis of DXA-derived hand scans
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12880-015-0042-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Romann, Jörg Fuchslocher

Abstract

BackgroundThe second-to-fourth digit-length ratio (2D:4D) may be a correlate of prenatal sex steroids, and it has been linked to sporting prowess. The aim of the study was to validate dual-energy X-ray-absorptiometry (DXA) as a technique to assess 2D:4D in soccer players under 15 years of age (U-15).MethodsPaired X-ray and DXA scans of the left hands of 63 male U-15 elite soccer players (age: 14.0¿±¿0.3 years) were performed, and 2D:4D was then compared between the two techniques. The 2D:4D measurements were performed twice by two blinded raters. Intrarater and interrater reliability, as well as agreement between the X-ray and the DXA assessments, were tested.ResultsThe intrarater reliabilities of both raters using X-ray with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of 0.97 and 0.90 were excellent. Using DXA, the ICCs were 0.90 and 0.91 thus also showing excellent reliability. The interrater reliabilities were excellent using the X-ray assessment (ICC of 0.94) and the DXA assessment (ICC of 0.90), respectively. The Bland-Altman plots showed that the 2D:4D ratios of the two raters did not differ significantly between the X-ray and the DXA assessments. The standard errors of estimate were 0.01 for both techniques. The 95% limits of agreement of ±0.018 (±2.0%) and ±0.023 (±2.6%), respectively, were within the acceptable tolerance of 5%, and showed very good agreement.ConclusionDXA offered a replicable technique for assessing 2D:4D in youth soccer players. Therefore, the DXA technique seems to be an alternative method for evaluating 2D:4D in youth sports.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 24%
Student > Postgraduate 12 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 17 31%
Psychology 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Decision Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2015.
All research outputs
#15,319,634
of 22,785,242 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#264
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,753
of 352,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,785,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.