STUDY DESIGN: The present study was conducted on 151 women with gynecological cancers as the case group and 152 healthy women with no history of such cancers as control group. The dematographic details of participants from both control and case groups were collected using a checklist, and the pattern of their fingerprints was prepared and examined. The data were analyzed for their significance using chi-square test and t- test. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS: Dermatoglyphic analysis showed that arch and loop patterns significantly changed in cases group as compared to control. However, the odds ratio suggested that loop pattern in 6 or more fingers might be a risk factor for developing gynecological cancers.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that there is an association between fingerprint patterns and gynecological cancers and so, dermatoglyphic analysis may aid in the early diagnosis of these cancers.
METHODS: This study measured 2-PD thresholds for the dominant and nondominant index finger and dominant and nondominant forearm in groups of students in a 4-year chiropractic program at the International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Measurements were made using digital calipers mounted on a modified weighing scale. Group comparisons were made among students for each year of the program (years 1, 2, 3, and 4). Analysis of the 2-PD threshold for differences among the year groups was performed with analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The mean 2-PD threshold of the index finger was higher in the students who were in the higher year groups. Dominant-hand mean values for year 1 were 2.93 ± 0.04 mm and 1.69 ± 0.02 mm in year 4. There were significant differences at finger sites (P < .05) among all year groups compared with year 1. There were no significant differences measured at the dominant forearm between any year groups (P = .08). The nondominant fingers of the year groups 1, 2, and 4 showed better 2-PD compared with the dominant finger. There was a significant difference (P = .005) between the nondominant (1.93 ± 1.15) and dominant (2.27 ± 1.14) fingers when all groups were combined (n = 104).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated that the finger 2-PD of the chiropractic students later in the program was more precise than that of students in the earlier program.