• Users Online: 263
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 255-261

An adaptive approach to detection of dermatoglyphic patterns of bangladeshi people with down syndrome using fingerprint classification


1 Department of Anatomy, Eastern Medical College, Cumilla, Bangladesh
2 Department of Anatomy, Chittagong Medical College, Chattogram, Bangladesh
3 Department of Physiology, Eastern Medical College, Cumilla, Bangladesh
4 Unit of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, National Defence University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
5 Department of Public Health, North South University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
6 Department of Statistics, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
7 Unit of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Date of Submission05-Apr-2021
Date of Decision30-Apr-2021
Date of Acceptance06-Jun-2021
Date of Web Publication27-Jul-2021

Correspondence Address:
Mainul Haque
Unit of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, Kem Perdana Sungai Besi, 57000 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aihb.aihb_69_21

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Introduction: Dermatoglyphics is studying the patterns of the ridged skin of the palms, fingers, soles and toes. The patterns are formed early in the foetus. This study was designed to observe dermatoglyphic changes amongst the Down syndrome patients and compare the change with the typical healthy research participants. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional observational analytical study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy, Chittagong Medical College (CMC), Chattogram, from January 2018 to January 2019. A total of 200 participants were included by convenient sampling according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. One hundred Down syndrome patients were recruited in the study group from different Down syndrome society organisations in Bangladesh. One hundred other medical science and dental background students studying at CMC were selected as controls irrespective of sex. Dermatoglyphic print was taken by the ink and paper method. The detailed dermatoglyphic analysis was done by using a magnifying glass, calculator and scale. A two-sample proportion test has been conducted to compare the proportion of fingerprint patterns of whorls, ulnar loops, radial loops and arches of both hands in the Down syndrome patient and control groups. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the prediction of fingerprint pattern from the presence of Down syndrome and gender. Results: It is observed that the ulnar loop is more prominent in both hands of Down syndrome patients than in the control group irrespective of sex (P < 0.001), while arch and whorl patterns are more prominent in controls than in Down syndrome patients (P < 0.001). Conclusion: It is revealed that there were significant differences in fingertip print patterns between Down syndrome patients and healthy controls. Hence, it can be used as a diagnostic aid for the Down syndrome patient.

Keywords: Bangladesh, dermatoglyphics, Down syndrome, fingertip pattern


How to cite this article:
Hossain MM, Ashrafuzzaman M, Jahan I, Lugova H, Samad N, Das P, Haque M. An adaptive approach to detection of dermatoglyphic patterns of bangladeshi people with down syndrome using fingerprint classification. Adv Hum Biol 2021;11:255-61

How to cite this URL:
Hossain MM, Ashrafuzzaman M, Jahan I, Lugova H, Samad N, Das P, Haque M. An adaptive approach to detection of dermatoglyphic patterns of bangladeshi people with down syndrome using fingerprint classification. Adv Hum Biol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 26];11:255-61. Available from: https://www.aihbonline.com/text.asp?2021/11/3/255/322462




  Introduction Top


Fingerprint matching is considered to be the most reliable method to assess individual identities at present.[1] Karu and Jain concentrated on the coarse-level classification of fingerprints where their algorithm classifies the fingerprints by extracting singular points (cores and deltas) while their classifier is invariant to translation, rotation and small amounts of scale changes.[1] The probability of finding identical prints was 1 in 64 million calculated by Galton.[2] The first classification of fingerprints (digital patterns) into loops, arches and whorls was done by Sir Francis Galton in 1890.[2] Eight classes were then refined in Sir Galton's algorithm: plain arch, tended arch, right loop, left loop, plain whorl, central pocket, twin loop and accidental whorl.[3] It is observed that < 5% of fingerprints have arches in them.[3] Many researchers in the past have addressed grouped arch and tended arch into one class presented by Maltoni et al., where their classification algorithm accuracy depends on the number of categories of fingerprints. Many researchers in the past have addressed three fingerprint classification problems.[4] A syntactic method was presented by Rao and Balck.[4] The core and the delta points are used as points of registration in fingerprint matching by Srinivasan and Murthy, whereas the Poincare Index is used to detect singular points in the image by Kawagoe and Tojo.[5],[6],[7],[8] Wilson et al. have used a neural network to classify fingerprint images.[7] Fitz and Green, Sarbadhikari et al. and Park and Park have used fast Fourier transform to extract fingerprint image patterns for fingerprint classification.[9],[10],[11] According to the fingerprint, images are divided into four subimages, and then, a standard discrete Fourier transform is formed.[9],[10],[11]

Dermatoglyphics discuss fingerprints, palm prints and toe prints.[12] Cummins advocated these traits in the United States in 1961.[12] In the history of dermatoglyphics, there are descriptions of fingerprints and palm prints by Caplan and Lambourne.[13],[14] In 1823, Purkinje methodically classified fingerprints for the first time into nine types.[13],[14],[15] Besides, at the end of the 19th century, Galton reported on the segmentation of dermatoglyphics, comparisons amongst twins and ethnic groups and most importantly a rule called 'proof of no change'.[16] This law states that an individual's dermatoglyphics remain unchanged throughout his/her lifetime.[16] Based on these original studies, many researchers have investigated dermatoglyphics in various fields such as forensic medicine, anthropology and genetics.[17],[18],[19] Recently, recognition of irregular fingerprints amongst patients with certain types of congenital anomalies has drawn attention to the area of medical dermatoglyphics.[17],[18],[19]

Fingerprints of both hands are not the same and persist lifelong unless the dermis is damaged.[20] During the 12th–16th week of foetal life, the epidermal ridges begin to differentiate and are completed by the 20th week.[21] The skin of the palm of the hands and the plantar surface of feet is corrugated with the epidermal ridges.[22] Dermatoglyphics deals with studying the epidermal ridges and their configurations on the fingers, palms and soles.[23] Once established, dermatoglyphic patterns remain unchanged throughout life except in the dimension disproportionate to an individual's growth.[23] Sir Francis Galton released his work on the fingerprints in 1892 and Cummin in 1926, for the first time, added the term dermatoglyphics to the field of science.[24] Some investigators found a correlation between dermatoglyphics and various types of diseases such as depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, psoriasis, leprosy, Down syndrome and Klinefelter's syndrome.[25],[26],[27] Many medical conditions, for example, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, bronchial asthma, pulmonary tuberculosis and carcinoma breast, also relate to dermatoglyphics.[25],[26],[27] The patterns of ridges that develop in the palm are determined genetically.[28] Disturbance by genetic factors can produce unusual or abnormal dermatoglyphics during intrauterine life.[29]

Down syndrome can occur due to trisomy 21, Robertsonian translocation or mosaicism.[30] Trisomy 21 is a genetic disorder caused by all or part of the third copy of chromosome 21.[30] It is typically associated with physical growth delays, characteristic facial features and mild-to-moderate intellectual disability.[30] The most common form of Down syndrome is known as trisomy 21, a condition where individuals have 47 chromosomes in each cell instead of 46. Trisomy 21 is caused by an error in cell division called non-disjunction.[30] This leaves a sperm or egg cell with an extra copy of chromosome 21 before or at conception.[30] The worldwide incidence of Down syndrome is one in 1000 live births.[31]

This study was done to detect the dermatoglyphic patterns amongst Bangladeshi Down syndrome patients and compare the change with the typical healthy research participants (RPs). In addition, this is a cross-sectional study with a comparison group, hence the main objective is to determine the prevalence of dermatoglyphic patterns and compare them between the participants with and without Down syndrome, as well as between males and females.


  Materials and Methods Top


Study design

This research work was a cross-sectional observational analytical study.

Sampling method

Convenient sampling method was adopted to select all the RPs.

Study period

This study was carried out from January 2018 to January 2019.

Study area

This study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy, Chittagong Medical College (CMC), Chattogram, Bangladesh.

Study sample

The following formula calculated the sample size:[32]

n = Z2 pq/e2

Z = Z value of standard normal distribution at a given level of significance or a given confidence level (at a 5% level of significance or 95% confidence level, Z = 1.96)

p = expected proportion of event; if not known, it is regarded as 0.5

q = 1 − P = 1–0.5 = 0.5

e = acceptable error or precision in the estimate of p, usually set as 0.05

Hence, the calculated sample size was,

n = (1.96) 2 × 0.5 × 0.5/(0.05) 2 = 384.87

Nevertheless, due to time constraint, a total of 200 participants were recruited, 100 of them were from Down syndrome patient and the rest 100 participants were students of both sexes enrolled in MBBS and Dentistry at CMC as the control group fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria with informed consent. Ten per cent of extra Down syndrome patients and students (total 110 + 110 = 220) were taken to mitigate the subjects dropping out. Confirmed Down syndrome patients were collected from different Bangladesh-Down syndrome Society of Bangladesh, Prerona School, Ashar Alo School, Proyas School and Society for the Welfare of the Intellectually Disabled, Bangladesh (SWID Bangladesh). Detailed personal information was recorded in a pre-fixed questionnaire from all the RPs who participated voluntarily. Age was verified from birth certificates, national identity cards or students' ID cards. Dermatoglyphic prints were taken by the ink and paper method described by Cummins and Midlo.[12]

Inclusion criteria

Diagnosed Down syndrome patients of sexes in any age group and 1st-year MBBS and Dental students of CMC irrespective of sex were selected as RPs. All the fingerprints and palm print with clear impressions were chosen for further analysis.

Exclusion criteria

Down syndrome patient and control group participants with any hand deformities due to injury, birth defect or permanent scar on any of either hand, permanent scar on their fingers or palms, worn fingerprints, webbed or bandaged fingers were excluded. When the impressions were poor or when any of the hands showed some defects, the photographs were rejected. Participants had neurological disorders, for example, seizure and multiple sclerosis, signs of mental retardation such as schizophrenia and cerebral palsy were excluded from the study. Skin diseases in fingers and palms, for example, fungal infection, dermatitis, eczema, psoriasis, skin rash or hypersensitivity to ink, were also excluded. Those who had congenital diseases or acquired deformities of the fingers and palms other than Down syndrome, for example, congenital heart disease, Klinefelter's syndrome, Turner syndrome, cleft lip, cleft palate, β-thalassaemia, polydactyly, spina bifida (based on history taking) and multifactorial diseases such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension and pulmonary tuberculosis could not be recruited in the study.

Project details

The individual's hands were washed with liquid soap before inking to remove dirt from the hands. Then, hands were wiped with a paper towel. Two white papers were fixed on the clipboard to take fingerprints of the right hand and left hand. Then, the clipboard was placed on a wooden table. The required amount of ink was poured into a clean and dry flat-bottomed container. The hand roller was moved in the ink until the ink was spread thinly and homogeneously in the roller. Both hands were painted with the help of the roller. The thin film of ink was applied to the fingertips bypassing the inked roller uniformly over the digits. After ensuring that the fingertip was inked properly, the fingerprint was taken on the white paper fixed on the clipboard. Fingers were rolled from radial to ulnar side, and fingerprint was taken on paper. The individual was then asked to clean both hands with turpentine oil, liquid soap under running tap water and dried with a paper towel.

The painted papers were examined with the magnifying glass (×4 and ×6). The magnifying glass was used to zoom in the fingerprints and identify the ridges to determine different dermatoglyphic patterns. Dermatoglyphic patterns were then recorded separately for five digits of both hands-on datasheets. Analysis of the fingerprints (arch, ulnar loop, radial loop and whorl) of Down syndrome patient and control groups was done. [Figure 1] shows the basic fingerprint types. The arch has no triradius, the loop has a single triradius and opens to one side and the whorl has two or more triradii. Loops open towards the ulnar (U) or radial (R) sides of the hand and are designated accordingly.
Figure 1: Studying of different dermatoglyphic patterns on fingertips: (i) whorl pattern, (ii) loop pattern and (iii) arch pattern (magnified).

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

After the data collection, data were analysed using a two-sample proportion test with continuity correction. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to identify the predictors of having dermatoglyphic patterns of fingerprints. All the statistical tests were one-sided, and P values were considered significant if it is <0.05. All the analysis was conducted using software R studio version R-3.6.0 for Windows [R Studio, 250 Northern Ave, Boston, MA 02210].


  Results Top


The sex representation in Down syndrome patients [experimental group: males (61.0%), and females (39.0%)] and those without Down syndrome [control group: males (50.9%), and females(50.0%)]. The fingerprints having patterns arch, ulnar loop, radial loop and whorl were calculated for both right and left for each participant. The proportion of all the fingerprint patterns (arch, ulnar loop, radial loop and whorl) was calculated for both hands of the Down syndrome people and controls. The proportions and the test result regarding the proportions' differences are depicted in [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Table 1: Comparison of the total proportion of fingerprint patterns found in all the right-hand fingers between Down syndrome people and controls

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison of the total proportion of fingerprint patterns found in all the left-hand fingers between Down syndrome people and controls

Click here to view


On the right hand, the proportion of the fingerprint pattern arch in Down syndrome and controls is 0.008 and 0.106, respectively [Table 1]. The proportion test suggests that the proportion of the fingerprint pattern arch is significantly higher in controls than Down syndrome people, which means that the fingerprint pattern arch is significantly more prevalent in controls rather than Down syndrome people. The test also suggests that the proportion of fingerprint patterns ulnar loop and radial loop found in Down syndrome people is significantly higher than the proportion of fingerprint patterns ulnar loop and radial loop found in controls, which means that the ulnar loop and radial loop fingerprint patterns are significantly more prevalent in Down syndrome people than controls. Finally, the result shows that the proportion of fingerprint pattern whorl found in controls is significantly higher than the proportion of fingerprint pattern whorl found in Down syndrome people, which means that fingerprint pattern whorl is significantly more prevalent controls than Down syndrome people.

In the case of the left hand, similar results are also found [Table 2]. Arch and whorl's fingerprint patterns are significantly more prevalent in controls than the Down syndrome people. Furthermore, fingerprint patterns ulnar loop and radial loop are significantly more prevalent in Down syndrome people than in controls.

The study considered both sexes of two groups based on the fingerprint pattern of both hands. It has been found that the ulnar loop (34.70%) was more prominent in both hands of Down syndrome female patients while whorl (21.20%) and arch (6.60%) were more projecting in both hands of females of control groups [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Fingerprint pattern of both hands in Down syndrome female patient and female control groups.

Click here to view


Moreover, the ulnar loop was more (52.10%) projecting in both hands of Down syndrome male patients, whereas whorl (21.70%) and arch (4.30%) were more prominent in both hands of males of the control group [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Fingerprint pattern of both hands in Down syndrome male patient and male control groups.

Click here to view


Furthermore, a more prominent ulnar loop (86.80%) in Down syndrome patients irrespective of sex and more prevalent whorl (42.90%) and arch (10.90%) were observed in the control group irrespective of sex [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Fingerprint pattern of both hands in Down syndrome patient and control groups.

Click here to view


Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to predict the fingerprint patterns based on the presence of Down syndrome (1 = yes, 2 = no) and gender (1 = male, 2 = female). The results of the analyses for the right-hand fingers revealed that gender was not a statistically significant predictor to the models [Table 3]. Down syndrome was a significant predictor of having arch, loop and whorl fingerprint patterns. People with Down syndrome were less likely to have arch pattern (B = 0.467, Standard Error (SE) =0.095, P < 0.001) and whorl pattern (B = 1.892, SE = 0.177, P < 0.001) and more likely to have ulnar loop pattern (B = −2.261, SE = 0.175, P < 0.001). Down syndrome was not a significant predictor of having radial loop fingerprint pattern in the model.
Table 3: Summary of multiple regression analyses for variables predicting fingerprint patterns (right-hand fingers)

Click here to view


[Table 4] shows the results of multiple linear regression analyses for the left-handed fingers. Female gender was a positive significant predictor of having arch fingerprint pattern (B = 0.215, SE = 0.097, P = 0.028). People with Down syndrome were less likely to have arch (B = 0.446, SE = 0.096, P < 0.001) and whorl pattern (B = 1.704, SE = 0.185, P < 0.001) and more likely to have ulnar loop pattern (B = −1.966, SE = 0.191, P < 0.001). Down syndrome was a marginally significant predictor of having radial loop fingerprint pattern (B = −0.155, SE = 0.078, P = 0.047).
Table 4: Summary of multiple regression analyses for variables predicting fingerprint patterns (left-hand fingers)

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


In the present study, fingertip pattern frequencies of arches, ulnar loops, radial loops and whorls in all fingers of the right hand and left hand in the Down syndrome patient and control groups in both sexes were compared. When comparing the fingerprint patterns in all the fingers of the right hand and the left hand between Down syndrome people and controls, it showed a significantly increased ulnar loop pattern in Down syndrome and significantly increased whorl and arch pattern control groups (P < 0.001). These findings are consistent with previous studies conducted by Shiono et al. and Than et al., who also observed that the most frequent finger pattern in Down syndrome in both the right and left hands was the ulnar loop.[33],[34] Similar distribution was also observed in the Down syndrome patients and the Chinese, Canadian and British studies' controls.[35],[36],[37] Ulnar loop was mostly found in all fingertips of the right hand and left hand in Down syndrome patients, whereas whorl and arch patterns were more frequently present in the control group in their studies.[35],[36],[37] Newell-Morris and Jameela reported that the occurrence of the ulnar loop amongst Down syndrome patients in both right hand and left hand was high, and the whorl and arch were the most common patterns for controls in their studies.[38],[39] Kimura experimented on patients with Down syndrome and Japanese controls in both right hand and left hand, and the outcome supports our study findings by revealing that ulnar loop was predominant in Down syndrome patients than in controls and whorl and arch patterns were predominant in the control group than in the Down syndrome patients.[40]

In the present study, the ulnar loop was more projecting in both hands of Down syndrome female patients than the ulnar loop in both hands of control group females. Nonetheless, whorl and arch were more projecting in both hands of female control groups than female Down syndrome patients. The ulnar loop was more projecting in both hands of Down syndrome male patients than the ulnar loop in both hands of control males. Moreover, whorl and arch were more prominent in both hands of the male control group than in male Down syndrome patients. Whorl was the most frequent pattern in controls than Down syndrome patients. Than et al. revealed that the ulnar loop in Down syndrome cases in both sexes were comparatively more projecting than control group. Thereby, their findings were in support of current study.[34] Furthermore, Holt's British study evinced that the ulnar loop pattern of male Down syndrome patients is 31.1% and in female patients 38.5%.[37] Jameela also reported that ulnar loops were seen more prevalently in both hands in males than ulnar loops in female Down syndrome children on the fingertip, supporting this study's findings.[39]

Furthermore, in the present study, a more prominent ulnar loop in Down syndrome patients irrespective of sex and more prevalent whorl and arch were observed in the control group irrespective of sex (P < 0.001). The frequencies of the ulnar loop patterns in both hands, irrespective of sex, were most common in Down syndrome patients than in controls.[33] More prevalent whorl and arch were observed in the control group in both hands.[33] According to the study of Than et al., Down syndrome patients showed a higher frequency of ulnar loop than the control group in both hands irrespective of sex.[34] Controls had a higher incidence of whorl pattern (41.0%) than the Down syndrome patients (15.75%) in both hands irrespective of sex found in their study which is similar to our findings.[34] According to the study of Lu, Down syndrome patients showed a higher frequency of ulnar loop than the control group in both hands irrespective of sex.[41] In their study, controls had a higher incidence of whorl pattern than the Down syndrome patients in both hands irrespective of sex which aligns with our study findings.[41]

Limitation of the study

The smaller sample size, which included 100 Down syndrome patients, is not a credible representative. A considerable sample size could represent the fact to a greater extent. Moreover, the duration of the study was shorter. Above and all, it is a cross-sectional study with its' inherent limitation.


  Conclusion and Recommendations Top


The study revealed that there were significant differences in fingertip patterns between Down syndrome patients and controls. In dermatoglyphics, pattern of fingertips showed that the ulnar loop was significantly more in Down syndrome patients in contrast with whorl pattern, where the prominence of the pattern was statistically significant amongst controls.

As the present study was conducted in a limited territory, a further large-scale study is recommended. This study was the first with such observation and record in this area. Methods were undertaken to conduct this study, and the findings could be useful for future research, biometric analysis and multidisciplinary studies. We suggest a computerised automatic palm and fingerprint reading system to collect dermatoglyphics for more accuracy.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The protocol of this study was approved by the members of the Ethical Review Board (ERB) of CMC, 57 K. B. Fazlul Kader Rd, Chattogram 4203, Bangladesh, and received a certificate of ethical clearance of ERB (Reference No.: CMC/PG/2018/479; dated 18 December 2018). Informed consent was obtained from guardians or parents of all RPs as they were a case of Down syndrome.

Consent for publication

All authors reviewed and approved the final version and have agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including any issues related to accuracy or integrity.

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to all in the Department of Anatomy who assisted in successfully conducting the study, including the 1st-year MBBS and Dental students of CMC, Chattogram, for their kind cooperation participation during sample collection. The authors express their gratitude towards Down syndrome patients and their parents and guardians for providing generous cooperation and necessary information. Moreover, the Down Syndrome Society of Bangladesh, Prerona School, Ashar Alo School, Proyas School and SWID Bangladesh deserve special thanks and appreciation for their support, without which this study would have been impossible to conduct.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Karu K, Jain AK. Fingerprint classification. Pattern Recognit 1996;29:389-404. [doi: 10.1016/0031-3203(95)00106-9].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Galton F. Fingerprints. London: Macmillan and Co.; 1892. p. 275-83.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Maltoni D, Maio D, Jain AK, Prabhakar S. Handbook of Fingerprint Recognition. 2nd ed. London: Springer Verlag; 2009. p. 39-43. [doi: 10.1007/978-1-84882-254-2].  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Rao K, Balck K. Type classification of fingerprints: A syntactic approach. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1980;2:223-31.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Srinivasan V, Murthy N. Detection of singular points in fingerprint images. Pattern Recognit 1992;25:139-53.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kawagoe M, Tojo A. Fingerprint pattern classification. Pattern Recognit1984;17:295-303.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Wilson CL, Candela GT, Watson CI. Neural network fingerprint classification. J Artif Neural Netw 1993;1:1-26.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Blue JL, Candela GT, Grother PJ, Chellappa R, Wilson CL. Evaluation of pattern classifiers for fingerprint and OCR applications. Pattern Recognit 1994;27:485-501.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Fitz A, Green R. Fingerprint classification using a hexagonal fast Fourier transform. Pattern Recognit 1996;29:1587-97.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Sarbadhikari SN, Basak J, Pal SK, Kundu MK. Noisy fingerprints classification with directional FFT based features using MLP. Neural Comput Appl 1998;7:180-91.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Park CH, Park H. Fingerprint classification using fast Fourier transform and nonlinear discriminant analysis. Pattern Recognit 2005;38:495-503.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Cummins H, Midlo C. Fingerprints, Palms and Soles: An Introduction to Dermatoglyphics. New York: Dover Publications; 1961. p. 319. Available from: https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:000886412. [Last accessed on 2021 Apr 28].  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Caplan RM. How fingerprints came into use for personal identification. J Am Acad Dermatol 1990;23:109-14.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Lambourne GT. A brief history of fingerprints. J Forensic Sci Soc 1978;17:95-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Cummins H, Kennedy RW. Commentatio de examine physiologico organi visus et systematis cutanei. Purkinje's observations (1823) on finger prints and other skin features. 1940. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1991;27:19-64.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Stigler SM. Galton and identification by fingerprints. Genetics 1995;140:857-60.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Schauman B, Alter M. Dermatoglyphics in Medical Disorders. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1976. p. 258.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Reed T. Dermatoglyphics in medicine--problems and use in suspected chromosome abnormalities. Am J Med Genet 1981;8:411-29.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Shiono H. Dermatoglyphics in medicine. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1986;7:120-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Sharma A, Sood V, Singh P, Sharma A. Dermatoglyphics: A review on fingerprints and their changing trends of use. CHRISMED J Health Res 2018;5:167-72.  Back to cited text no. 20
  [Full text]  
21.
Bhavana D, Ruchi J, Prakash T, Kalyan JL. Study of fingerprint patterns in relationship with blood group and gender – A statistical review. Res J Forensic Sci 2013;1:15-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Bhasin V, Bhasin MK. Anthropology Today: Trends Scope and Applications. Delhi: Kamla-Raj Enterprises; 2007. p. 285-95.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Venkatesh E, Bagewadi A, Keluskar V, Shetty A. Palmar dermatoglyphics in oral leukoplakia and OSCC patients. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2008;20:94-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
  [Full text]  
24.
Babu SS, Powar BP, Khare ON. Palmar dermatoglyphics in pulmonary tuberculosis. J Anat Soc India 2005;54:64-6.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Gupta UK, Prakash S. Dermatoglyphics: A study of fingertip patterns in bronchial asthma and its genetic disposition. Kathmandu Uni Med J 2003;1:267-71.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Mellor, C. Dermatoglyphics in Schizophrenia: Part I: Qualitative Aspects. Br J Psychiatry 1968;114(516):1387-97.   Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Shakibaei F, Asadollahi GA, Tabibi A. Dermatoglyphics in patients with schizophrenia. J Res Med Sci 2011;16:1055-61.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Moore K, Persaud TV, Torchia M. The Developing Human Clinically Oriented Embryology. 9th ed. U.P. India: Elsevier; 2019. p. 452.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
EL-Saadany HM, Kassem E, El-Sergany M, Sheta AR. Can dermatoglyphics be used as an anatomical marker in Egyptian rheumatoid patients? J Am Sci 2010;6:457-66.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Mohammed B, Garba SH, Adeyemi LB. Digital dermatoglyphics Patterns of the Kanuri Ethnic Group of North-Eastern Nigeria. Int J Innov Appl Stud 2014;9:985-8.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Das R, Sarker A, Saha H, Bin Shahid AS, Shahunja KM, Chisti MJ. Experience with clinically Diagnosed Down Syndrome children admitted with Diarrhea in an Urban Hospital in Bangladesh. Int Sch Res Notices 2015;2015:979404.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Hoque MM. Sample size calculation. In: ABC of Research Methodology and Biostatistics. 2nd ed. Dhaka: ABC Publishers; 2014. p. 147.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Shiono H, Kadowaki J, Kasahara S. Dermatoglyphics of Down's syndrome in Japan. Tohoku J Exp Med 1969;99:107-13.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Than M, Myat KA, Khadijah S, Jamaludin N, Isa MN. Dermatoglyphics of Down's syndrome patients in Malays – A comparative study. Anthropol Anz 1998;56:351-65.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Bryant JI, Emanuel I, Huang SW, Kronmal R, Lo J. Dermatoglyphs of Chinese children and Down's syndrome. J Med Genet 1970;7:338-44.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Thompson M, Bandler E. Finger pattern combinations in normal individuals and in Down's syndrome. Hum Biol 1973;45:563-70.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Holt SB. Finger-print patterns in mongolism. Ann Hum Genet 1964;27:279-82.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Newell-Morris L. A comparative developmental approach to the dermatoglyphics of Down syndrome. Prog Clin Biol Res 1991;373:305-19.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Jameela TP. Dermatoglyphic Patterns Evident in Disability Groups. Ph.D. Thesis. Kottayam: Mahatma Gandhi University; 2006. p. 423.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Kimura S. Discrimination of Down's syndrome with dermatoglyphic examination: An application of two dimensional graphic representation (author's transl). Jinrui Idengaku Zasshi 1978;23:39-58.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Lu КH. An information and discriminant analysis of fingerprint patterns pertaining to identification of mongolism and mental retardation. Am J Hum Genet 1968;20:24-43.  Back to cited text no. 41
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion and R...
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed260    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded29    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]