Kato, Tomotaka

ABSTRACT Determining an appropriate sample size in human cadaveric studies remains a long‐standing and unresolved challenge. Unlike other basic science fields, anatomical research is constrained by factors such as limited human donor availability, cultural considerations, and ethical restrictions. Despite these limitations, researchers are often asked to justify sample sizes, yet no standardized guidelines currently exist. To quantitatively assess sample sizes in recent human cadaveric studies and propose evidence‐based recommendations for future research, a PubMed search was conducted on February 26, 2024, using the term human cadaveric study . The articles published in 2023 and 2024 were screened, yielding 770 eligible studies. Data extracted included the total sample size, number of classified groups, and journal impact factor (IF). Descriptive statistics, linear regression, and correlation analyses were performed. Continuous variables were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). The median sample size was 11.5 (IQR: 7–20), and 47.9% of studies used 10 or fewer specimens. The median number of classified groups was 3 (IQR: 2–4). Linear regression showed that studies dividing specimens into 2–6 groups often failed to meet the recommended sample size per group based on regression modeling. No significant correlation was found between sample size and journal IF ( r = −0.062, p = 0.115). Most cadaveric studies rely on small sample sizes due to inherent constraints, yet many still attempt a subgroup analysis without sufficient statistical power. Although flexibility is essential in anatomical research, we recommend a minimum total sample size of 10 for basic studies and at least five samples per group for those involving classification. Cadaveric sample size alone does not predict journal impact, highlighting the importance of methodological rigor over quantity.

AbstractContextThe World Health Organization set the recommended daily vitamin C intake, henceforth referred to as ascorbic acid (AA), on the basis of scurvy prevention. Double-blind AA depletion-repletion studies suggest that this recommended AA dose may be too low to prevent microvascular fragility.Objectives(1) To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials on whether AA supplementation leads to a reduced gingival bleeding tendency, a manifestation of microvascular fragility; and (2) to relate AA plasma levels to retinal hemorrhaging, another manifestation of microvascular fragility.Data sourcesData were reviewed from 15 trials conducted in 6 countries with 1140 predominantly healthy participants with measures of gingival bleeding tendency, and from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III of 8210 US residents with measures of retinal hemorrhaging.ResultsIn clinical trials, AA supplementation reduced gingival bleeding tendency when estimated baseline AA plasma levels were < 28 μmol/L (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.83; 95%CI, −1.16 to −0.49; P < 0.002). Supplementation with AA did not unequivocally reduce gingival bleeding tendency when baseline estimated AA plasma levels were >48 μmol/L or unknown (respective standardized mean differences: −0.23, 95%CI, −0.45 to −0.01, P < 0.05; and −0.56; 95%CI: −1.19 to 0.06, P < 0.08). In NHANES III, prevalence of both retinal hemorrhaging and gingival bleeding tendency increased when AA plasma levels were within the range that protects against scurvy (11–28 μmol/L; respective prevalence ratios adjusted for age and sex: 1.47; 95%CI: 1.22–1.77; and 1.64; 95%CI: 1.32–2.03; P < 0.001 for both).ConclusionConsistent evidence from controlled clinical trials indicates that setting human AA requirements based on scurvy prevention leads to AA plasma levels that may be too low to prevent an increased gingival bleeding tendency. Gingival bleeding tendency and retinal hemorrhaging coincide with low AA plasma levels and thus may be reflective of a systemic microvascular pathology that is reversible with an increased daily AA intake.