Date: August 2021.
Source: The Anatomical Record, 2021, vol. 304, issue 8, pp. 1800-1810. DOI: 10.1002/ar.24584.
Objective: Facial aging has been studied extensively, but questions remain about its timing, rate, and how much it differs between men and women. The team set out to build statistical models of craniofacial aging to describe and compare how each sex ages across adulthood.
Materials and Methods: Cranial surface meshes were drawn from 254 females, aged 20 to 90, and 252 males, aged 20 to 86, from the real-world 3dMD Headspace dataset captured in Liverpool. Each was parameterized using 16 anatomical landmarks and 59 semilandmarks placed on curves and surfaces, with aging patterns assessed and compared between sexes using Procrustes-based geometric morphometric methods.
Results: Regression analysis across the full age range found that age accounted for only a small proportion of total shape variation in either sex, but that form was significantly related to age, and that men and women age in significantly different ways. Further analysis showed aging differs in character, timing, and rate between earlier and later phases of adulthood in both sexes, with a marked shift occurring in each sex between roughly 40 and 59 years. Sexual differences in aging were evident in both the earlier and later phases of adulthood.
Conclusions: The study adds to understanding of adult craniofacial aging and sexual dimorphism. Because it draws on a local population, findings are directly applicable to that group; further studies are needed to assess generalisability and to build the population-level data needed to support clinical assessment and treatment planning.

Article: Growing Old: Do Women and Men Age Differently?
Authors: Olivia AM Smith, Christian Duncan, Nick Pears, Antonio Profico, Paul O’Higgins. Department of Plastic Surgery, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool, and Hull York Medical School and PalaeoHub, University of York.

Related Articles:

  1. 3D Modeling of craniofacial ontogeny and sexual dimorphism in children. OAM Smith, YSG Nashed, C Duncan, N Pears, A Profico, P O’Higgins.
  2. What can a morphometric study of unoperated children teach us about the natural history of metopic synostosis? AM Elawadly, LPJ Smith, A Borghi, KI Abdelaziz, AH Dulanka Silva, DJ Dunaway, NU Owase Jeelani, J Ong, RD Hayward, G James.
  3. The Identification of Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome Through Swap Disentangled Variational Autoencoder. T Rijlaarsdam, L Smith, A Rickart, S Schievano, D Dunaway, E Wolvius, L van de Lande, S Foti, J Ong.
  4. A generative model with domain adversarial training and independent conditional discriminators to predict the development of craniosynostosis. C Elkhill, IA Cruz-Guerrero, MG Linguraru, B French, AR Porras.