PONE-D-22-02392Facial Soft Tissue thickness in Forensic Facial Reconstruction: Impact of regional differences and age effectPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moritsugui

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers have provided detailed recommendations for revision (see below), which must be addressed in full.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Caroline Wilkinson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

Language editing needed – I indicated these by yellow highlighting in the attached document as they were too much to correct.

Overall, I think the research is sound, although not very innovative in the sense that it repeats what others have said before. We will need a better discussion of the results, and based on this and other studies clear guidance on the way forward with regard to the use of STT tables. What is the most important – age? Sex? Population?

Below are some comments, which should be read in conjunction with the comments in the text itself (made as sticky notes and highlights in yellow).

Title: Add “in Brazil” at the end

Abstract:

Needs editing as indicated in the attached document. Please provide the sample sizes.

Introduction:

The debate about the use of population-specific STT is not fully explored. This needs more detail.

We need to know more as to why the two populations are expected to be different – i.e., the background of the samples.

The Intro needs to better reflect current debates around the issues raised.

M and M

We need info on the age and sex distribution of the sample (found this later in Results – should be in M and M). Sample sizes in each sex-age cohort quite small (as few as n = 13). This is a shortcoming that should be discussed later on. We also need an indication of the sample sizes of the comparative sample.

I don’t know the software used – cant comment on it

I assume the individuals were in a sitting position when scanned? – this needs better discussion also with regards to best practice and current guidelines.

Inter- and intra-observer repeatability assessment needs better explanation

Comparison between the two regions – are the people from the two regions supposed to be different? Why would we expect them to be different? This needs explanation.

Results

The inter- and intra-observer results are too uninformative, we need the actual results. Inter-observer above 95% is really unusual.

Table with sample sizes should be in the M and M. In the end, the sample size per sex-age group is really small (with as few as 13 individuals)

Differences between the two compared groups should be discussed in more detail – how many measurements differed significantly? It seems there were quite a few. When does one decide that these differences are enough to use population-specific data? How much difference would this make in an actual reconstruction? In the literature it was suggested that one should look not so much at the absolute difference in mm, but rather in % of the actual difference (e.g., a 2 mm difference in a measurement of 10 mm may not make much of a difference in a reconstruction, but 2 mm when the average is 5 mm will be more pronounced). Think it was a paper by Briers? This warrants better Discussion (in the Discussion section).

Discussion

Changes with age cannot be ascribed to bone losses only – the soft tissues as well as the hard tissues undergo changes. Changes with age needs a more thorough discussion with reference to the literature– seems that in this study this was more important than differences between populations from different regions – would you advise that separate tables are used for older and younger groups? But not for different populations?

Miscegenation is a strong word to use, with negative connotations. Please rephrase.

It is stated that the regional differences have an insignificant impact on facial soft tissue thicknesses and consequently on FFR result. This last part – the actual result – has not been tested in this study and this statement can thus not be substantiated. It may be suggested, but was not proven by this study.

Overall, we need to be advised on the way forward, based on the results from this (and other) studies. The last sentence of the conclusion seems to contradict all of what had gone before – do we still need to take population, sex etc into account or not?

Reviewer #2: Overall, the manuscript is written well and logically laid out. The authors have provided details of demonstrated rigour with regards to the experimental design and subsequent analysis through inter and intra observer error, tests for normality, and bootstrapping where appropriate. A narrative is built up throughout the paper by describing the methodology in a chronological fashion, which I found to be well considered. All supporting data appears to have been made fully available.

The consideration of the level of specificity and granularity required with FSTTs is an important one, and it was interesting to see that the differences at regional level for Brazil were insufficient to justify multiple FSTT datasets.

I’ve noted a few suggestions below. Additionally, I have made some suggested edits for the English, as in some cases it was a little unclear what you were intending to say. These are small suggestions for the authors to consider, but I would encourage the inclusion of further clarification around some of the points raised:

General comments:

• You cover the literature in terms of the ‘success’ of population specific datasets in FFR, and that incongruent FSTTs still yield a recognisable face, but that congruent population specific datasets might result in a more ‘accurate’ FFR, although differences in protocols might suggest insufficient evidence for this. I wonder if you could provide some more background on the importance of FSTTs in the recognition process. I.e. FSTTs mainly cover the contours of the face, not the estimation of facial features. Literature suggests facial features and their configuration are more important for familiar face recognition. Furthermore, given the variation of FSTTs in the facial contour due to BMI and ageing, we have a greater tolerance for inaccuracies in these areas. I think it would be useful for you to provide some background on this and to discuss the relative importance of FSTT datasets in the Facial reconstruction and subsequent recognition process. You touch on this briefly in the discussion, but more is needed.

• Lines 273 – 283: Can you provide information of the distribution of samples in the above 41yrs age bracket? i.e. the range? As you mention, age-related changes to the soft tissues change in ‘type’ as age increases. For example, someone in their 40s may have superficial age related changes, caused by a change to the dermis. But those in their 60s and 70s are more likely to also exhibit more extreme volume/morphological changes, such as ptosis etc. which would have a bigger impact on the position of FSTTs. Given this, it would be useful to know the age range for that bracket, and if there was a wide range, why the sample was collapsed into one group. Especially given that a large portion of this manuscript discusses age-related changes.

• Do you anticipate any plans for future research in this area? Given that you observe morphological variation in faces between regions of Brazil, enough to warrant your investigation into FSTTs, might it be worth investigating parameters for feature estimation between these regions? It would be great to see this research carried out.

Formatting edits:

• Perhaps increase the size of the annotation text on figures 2 and 3? If I download the figures I can see it more clearly when zoomed in, but they are barely readable when in article format.

• Ectomolare could be better differentiated rather than using superscript and subscript 2. Whilst it represents upper and lower, I think it’s quite hard to see visually. Maybe 1 and 2 is better?

Grammatical edits:

• Table 1: description for Occlusal line. “where the occlusal line meets de mandible”. EDIT to “where the occlusal line meets the mandible”

• LINE 30: “…reconstruction aims to assemble”

• LINE 31: It’s not just next of kin, it could be friends etc. I would rephrase this

• LINE 38: “…which are reflected in the facial features” (see my third general comment as well)

• LINE 38: “This paper aimed to measure and compare….”

• LINE39:”…to ascertain the need for specific datasets for different regions”

• LINE 44: “As the age of the participants increased…”

• LINE 48: High compatibility was observed when comparing…..

• LINE 51: “Therefore, considering these two geographic regions, the need for applying different datasets has been shown to be unnecessary”

• LINE 58: “Forensic Facial Reconstruction (FFR) has an important role in helping to identify individuals that are unable to be identified by primary methods due to post-mortem changes, or by lack of ante-mortem information.”

• LINE 63: “…a public campaign is issued, aiming to illicit a response from the public as to who the remains may belong to. Following this, a formal identification can then take place”.

• LINE 69: “More recently, computerised face sculpture can be adopted by using digital modelling software, …”

• LINE 75: “In scientific literature….”

• LINE 91: I think “miscegenation” might be considered a derogatory term, and also relates more closely to Race rather than Ancestry. Consider rephrasing/choosing another term. It’s also used again throughout the manuscript.

• LINE 103: “The sample was composed of 101 cone beam…”

• LINE 133: “The Beaini et al……”

• LINE 137: “In total….”

• LINE 148: …CBCT were imported into the software….”

• LINE 153: “Prior to the gathering...”

• LINE 161: “spreadsheet Microsoft Excel for MAC was used….”

• LINE 163: “establishing…..”

• LINE 169: “…., and with non-normal data…”

• LINE 170: “analysis from a one-way ANOVA was applied to investigate any differences among the…..”

• LINES 181-183: “ ..composed of 101 exams, was divided into subgroups for age and sex, shown in Table 3.”

• LINES 205-6: …” that the male sample exhibited higher FSTT values compared to the female sample, except for Orbital Lateral…..”

• LINES 207-8:” The major thickness discrepancies between the sexes were found on….

• LINES 211 – 212: “Regarding age, an ANOVA was used, on both sexes, to compare averages between the age groups…”

• LINE 216: “Figs 4 and 5…”

• LINE 218: “specifically for females…”

• LINE 229: “..a predominance of higher mean FSTTs on the MW sample…..”

• LINE 234: “….using CBCT result in reliable….”

• LINES 236-7: “….showed that the Beaini protocol (17) yields excellent general reproducibility.”

• LINE 245: Consider using “Practitioner” rather than “forensic professional”

• LINES 250-251: “…revealed a tendency for males to exhibit greater tissue depths than females, except the Lateral….”

• LINES 252-255: Consider rephrasing. It’s not overly clear what is meant here?

• LINES 256-257: “…showed slight differences which were less than 3mm. Only four landmarks…..”

• LINE 261: “….variation of the soft tissue depths.”

• LINE 272: “..located in the mid and lower face.” Same for LINE 275

• LINE 309: “…divided into five regions..”

• LINE 312: “… of settlement and continuous migration….”

• LINE 321: “..differences were observed for both sexes. In males, differences were observed for five landmarks on the midline…”

• LINE 330: “…differences between the two studied….”

• LINE 331: “…Nonetheless, the ageing process…”

• LINE 333: “…The establishment of a biological profile…”

• LINE 335: “ …before selecting a FSTT dataset for FFR.”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-22-02392R1Facial Soft Tissue thickness in Forensic Facial Reconstruction: Impact of regional differences in BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moritsugui,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================Please make minor corrections as specified in the attached document.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Caroline Wilkinson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Further minor changes necessary - these are highlighted in the attached document.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-02392_R1.pdf

PONE-D-22-02392R2Facial Soft Tissue thickness in Forensic Facial Reconstruction: Impact of regional differences in BrazilPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moritsugui,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please make the one missed correction as the current sentence does not make sense.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Caroline Wilkinson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

All corrections have been made except one:

Line 27 should read: 'appearance of a face over a skull, in order to lead to recognition of that individual, making possible the application of primary identification methods'.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Facial Soft Tissue thickness in Forensic Facial Reconstruction: Impact of regional differences in Brazil

PONE-D-22-02392R3

Dear Dr. Moritsugui,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Caroline Wilkinson, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: