Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (561 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The skeleton of the HEAD including the facial bones and the bones enclosing the brain.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Skulls; Cranium; Calvaria; Calvarium.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Bone and Bones
- Narrower topics
- Cranial Fontanelles; Cranial Sutures; Ethmoid Bone; Facial Bones; Frontal Bone; Occipital Bone; Parietal Bone; Pterygopalatine Fossa; Skull Base; Sphenoid Bone; Temporal Bone
- See also
- Cephalometry; Craniotomy; Intracranial Pressure; Trephining
Related concepts
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 230,757 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Skull” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 35,711 of them (15.5%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 97,403 records.
Reviews account for 15,564 records (6.7%) and meta-analyses for 1,151. Randomized controlled trials number 4,447 (1.9%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 97,403 |
| 2000-2009 | 41,177 |
| 2010-2019 | 56,466 |
| 2020 onward | 35,711 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 15,564 | 6.7% |
| Meta-analyses | 1,151 | 0.5% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 4,447 | 1.9% |
Method: PubMed query "Skull"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative primate analysis shows that humans are not unique in having a tight cephalopelvic fit at birth | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 2 | cc by PMID 42373910 · DOI · PMC13541611 |
| Deep learning for discriminating cochlear malformations on temporal bone CT | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 42054756 · DOI · PMC13140023 |
| A computed tomography (CT) study of the eyeball position and estimation models for craniofacial identification | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 41961269 · DOI · PMC13275775 |
Comparative primate analysis shows that humans are not unique in having a tight cephalopelvic fit at birth [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Human childbirth is regarded as uniquely difficult among primates, due to a tight cephalopelvic fit thought to result from an evolutionary trade-off between adaptations to bipedal locomotion and increasing brain size.
- Closing excerpt
- Our findings reveal a diversity of obstetrical dilemmas across primates.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (145 words)
Human childbirth is regarded as uniquely difficult among primates, due to a tight cephalopelvic fit thought to result from an evolutionary trade-off between adaptations to bipedal locomotion and increasing brain size. This impression, however, may be an artefact of past adoption of anthropocentric measurements that underestimate birth challenges in non-human primates. Here we re-evaluate cephalopelvic proportions using species-specific three-dimensional data of the pelvic inlet along with neonatal cranial dimensions from a broad sample of extant primates. Results reveal that maternal body size is a key factor to consider. A tight cephalopelvic fit occurs in species with proportionately larger neonates, smaller pelves or a combination of both. The latter is the case in humans, producing the tightest fit among extant apes, but a similar combination of factors explains much more extreme cephalopelvic proportions in other species. Our findings reveal a diversity of obstetrical dilemmas across primates.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42373910 · DOI · PMC13541611
Deep learning for discriminating cochlear malformations on temporal bone CT [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectivesDiagnosis of cochlear malformation on temporal bone CT images is often difficult because the imaging findings are frequently subtle.
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionThe deep learning technique may be a useful supportive tool for diagnosing cochlear malformation on temporal bone CT images.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (166 words)
ObjectivesDiagnosis of cochlear malformation on temporal bone CT images is often difficult because the imaging findings are frequently subtle. Our aim was to assess the utility of deep learning analysis in diagnosing cochlear malformation on temporal bone CT images.MethodsA total of 373 temporal bone CTs (187 with normal and 186 with malformed cochlea) were included in this study. The network Swin UNETR was used for cochlea automatic segmentation, then we divided it into left and right sides. three classification networks, ResNet50, EfficientNet-B0 and DenseNet121, were used for training to diagnose cochlear malformation (590 sides). The test set (149 sides) was analyzed using deep learning models and by otologists.ResultsThe average Dice coefficient of Swin UNETR was 0.93. The AUCs for ResNet50, EfficientNet-B0 and DenseNet121 were 0.93, 0.89 and 0.93, respectively, with DenseNet121 achieving the highest AUC among the four models. ResNet50 and DenseNet121 are better than otologists (1‒5 y).ConclusionThe deep learning technique may be a useful supportive tool for diagnosing cochlear malformation on temporal bone CT images.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42054756 · DOI · PMC13140023
A computed tomography (CT) study of the eyeball position and estimation models for craniofacial identification [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Correctly setting the eyes within the orbits is an important first step in craniofacial identification.
- Closing excerpt
- Near equivalent accuracy by mean exophthalmos and its far greater simplicity, however, awards the mean value more practicality for casework.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (250 words)
Correctly setting the eyes within the orbits is an important first step in craniofacial identification. As several estimators often exist for each eyeball attribute, clarification of their accuracies in out-of-group samples is critical. In this study, we use CT scans from 58 individuals to assess standard errors (SEE) for published estimators, cross-validate methods and examine the linear regression utility of orbit volume for estimating eyeball protrusion. Our results confirm the eyeball to be positioned closer to the superior and lateral orbital walls (2.5 & 5.6 mm, respectively). Horizontal placement was best estimated by the pupil center at 42.4% of the orbit width and medial to the lateral orbital margin (SEE = 1.6 mm). Anterior eyeball position was best set by the grand mean exophthalmos (16.2 mm) measured in living subjects (SEE = 2.9 mm). Vertical eyeball height could be estimated, with equivalent error, by either: (a) setting the pupil center 22.9 mm inferior to the superior orbital margin (SEE = 1.7 mm); or (b) inferior to the superior orbital margin by 44.1% of the orbit height (SEE = 1.6 mm). Orbit volume weakly correlated with anterior eyeball protrusion (r = 0.33), but the relationship was not statistically significant (p = 0.14). The correlation direction contradicted Gerasimov’s reports (positive, not negative). Linear regression using the volume of an elliptical cone, calculated from three orbit-associated measurements, reduced protrusion SEE to 2.4 mm. Near equivalent accuracy by mean exophthalmos and its far greater simplicity, however, awards the mean value more practicality for casework.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41961269 · DOI · PMC13275775
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review [4]
- Research article Effectiveness of Lateral Bone Augmentation on the Alveolar Crest Dimension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [5]
- Research article Endoscopic versus microscopic trans-sphenoidal pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Research article Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis [7]
- Research article Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery in the Treatment of Pituitary Adenoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [8]
- Research article Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Hard Tissue Outcomes of Alveolar Ridge Preservation [9]
References
- Torres-Tamayo N, Schlager S, Hirasaki E, Smith TD, Rae TC, Betti L. Comparative primate analysis shows that humans are not unique in having a tight cephalopelvic fit at birth. . 2026. PMID 42373910 · DOI · PMC13541611
- Li Z, Zhou L, Bin X, Liu B, Tang A, Tan S. Deep learning for discriminating cochlear malformations on temporal bone CT. . 2026. PMID 42054756 · DOI · PMC13140023
- Humphrey RAR, Hona TWPT, Stephan CN. A computed tomography (CT) study of the eyeball position and estimation models for craniofacial identification. . 2026. PMID 41961269 · DOI · PMC13275775
- Van der Weijden F, Dell'Acqua F, Slot DE. Alveolar bone dimensional changes of post-extraction sockets in humans: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2009. PMID 19929956 · DOI
- Sanz-Sánchez I, Ortiz-Vigón A, Sanz-Martín I, Figuero E, Sanz M. Effectiveness of Lateral Bone Augmentation on the Alveolar Crest Dimension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015. PMID 26215467 · DOI
- Goudakos JK, Markou KD, Georgalas C. Endoscopic versus microscopic trans-sphenoidal pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Otolaryngol. 2011. PMID 21752205 · DOI
- Punchak M, Chung LK, Lagman C, Bui TT, Lazareff J, Rezzadeh K, et al.. Outcomes following polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cranioplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2017. PMID 28377284 · DOI
- Li A, Liu W, Cao P, Zheng Y, Bu Z, Zhou T. Endoscopic Versus Microscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery in the Treatment of Pituitary Adenoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2017. PMID 28104521 · DOI
- Bassir SH, Alhareky M, Wangsrimongkol B, Jia Y, Karimbux N. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Hard Tissue Outcomes of Alveolar Ridge Preservation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018. PMID 30231083 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.