Review reveals constitutional and anthropometric variations across clinical pathologies, indicating substantial diagnostic utility for individualized patient assessment.
Sir William Osler quoted old Dr. Parry of Bath as saying, "It is much more important to know what sort of a patient has a disease than what sort of a disease the patient has." This might be taken as the text for Dr. Draper's venture into new fields. Up to this time, anthropologists have devoted their attention to racial and sex differences of body measurements, and to the establishment of norms of growth. With the exception of scattered studies listed by the author, and those of Porteus on the cranial measurements of the feebleminded (an exception not noted by Dr. Draper), anthropometric methods have not been applied to the study of disease entities. To be sure, the outstanding picture of the facies or figure in acromegaly, Froehlich's syndrome, exophthalmic goiter and other disease states have long had a recognized diagnostic value. Even in less striking conditions, older clinicians lacking
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1925 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: