The thyroid gland is one of the most important endocrine glands in the human body, regulating growth, development, metabolism, and energy utilization. Morphologically, it is a highly vascular, bilobed gland, situated in the anterior neck, usually weighing between 20–30 grams in adults, although this may vary depending on sex, age, body size, and nutritional or pathological status. The thyroid is responsible for producing thyroid hormones (thyroxine [T4] and triiodothyronine [T3]), which play crucial roles in basal metabolic rate regulation, thermogenesis, and modulation of protein, carbohydrate, and fat metabolism. In addition, the thyroid gland contributes to calcium homeostasis via calcitonin secretion.[1] The gland’s size and weight have long been of interest to anatomists, pathologists, surgeons, and clinicians because deviations from the expected range may indicate thyroid pathologies such as goiter, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, nodular disease, or neoplasms. Anthropometric correlations of thyroid gland morphology have been studied extensively to establish relationships between body dimensions (such as height, weight, and surface area) and thyroid size. However, the findings across populations remain inconsistent. Some authors reported a positive correlation between thyroid gland weight and body height, suggesting that taller individuals tend to have larger glands. Others did not find significant associations, highlighting the role of genetic, nutritional, and environmental factors.[2] Studying cadavers provides a unique opportunity to explore such relationships in a controlled manner, where height can be precisely measured, and thyroid glands can be dissected, weighed, and examined without ethical constraints associated with live subjects. Cadaveric studies also offer valuable baseline data for anatomists, forensic experts, and endocrine surgeons. In regions like India, where iodine deficiency and endemic goiter have historically influenced thyroid morphology, cadaveric studies are particularly important to establish normative data.[3] The present study sought to determine the correlation, if any, between thyroid gland weight and cadaver height among 80 formalin-fixed cadavers. By analyzing such correlations, this study intended to provide insights into the variability of thyroid gland morphology and contribute to anatomical knowledge, surgical practice, and medical education.[4] Aim To study the correlation between the weight of the thyroid gland and the height of cadavers. Objectives 1.To measure the weight of thyroid glands in 80 formalin-fixed cadavers. 2.To record the height of cadavers and analyze variations between males and females. 3.To determine the correlation between thyroid gland weight and cadaver height in both sexes.

Source of Data The study utilized formalin-fixed human cadavers available in the Department of Anatomy. A total of 80 cadavers (42 males and 38 females) were included. Study Design This was a cross-sectional, observational cadaveric study. Study Location The study was conducted in the Department of Anatomy at Vilasrao Deshmukh Government Medical College and MIMSR College Latur. SRTR Medical College Ambajogai Study Duration The study was carried out over 4 years during routine cadaveric dissections. Sample Size 80 formalin-fixed cadavers: 42 males and 38 females. Inclusion Criteria • Cadavers available in the Anatomy Department with intact neck regions. • Both male and female cadavers aged above 18 years at the time of death. • Cadavers without visible thyroid pathology or gross deformity. Exclusion Criteria • Cadavers with evidence of thyroid pathology (goiter, nodules, tumors). • Cadavers with distorted neck anatomy due to trauma, surgery, or congenital malformations. • Cadavers with incomplete records of height. Procedure and Methodology Each cadaver’s height was measured in the supine position using a calibrated measuring tape from the vertex to the heel. A standard dissection of the anterior neck region was performed following anatomical landmarks. The thyroid gland was identified, carefully dissected, and removed in toto with minimal handling to avoid tissue damage. Each thyroid gland was thoroughly cleaned of extraneous tissues and weighed using a digital electronic balance with accuracy up to 0.01 grams. All dissections and measurements were performed by trained anatomists under standardized conditions to ensure reproducibility. Sample Processing The glands were preserved in 10% formalin until weighing. After weighing, data were recorded in structured proformas with cadaver identification, sex, height, and gland weight. Statistical Methods Data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using SPSS software. Mean and standard deviation were calculated for continuous variables (height, thyroid gland weight). Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to assess the relationship between height and thyroid gland weight separately for males and females. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data Collection All data were collected prospectively during dissection sessions. Cadaveric information was anonymized, with only sex and height recorded for analysis. Results were tabulated, and findings were compared between males and females

Table 1: Baseline Characteristics of Cadavers (N = 80) Variable Male (n = 42) Female (n = 38) Total (N = 80) Test of Significance 95% CI p-value Age at death (years) 55.2 ± 12.4 52.7 ± 11.8 54.0 ± 12.1 t = 0.88 -2.7 to 7.7 0.38 Height (cm) 165.8 ± 7.9 154.7 ± 6.8 160.5 ± 9.3 t = 6.19 7.5 to 14.7 <0.001* Thyroid weight (g) 13.2 ± 2.9 12.6 ± 2.5 12.9 ± 2.7 t = 0.96 -0.7 to 1.9 0.34 Table 1 presents the baseline characteristics of the 80 cadavers studied, comprising 42 males and 38 females. The mean age at death was 55.2 ± 12.4 years in males and 52.7 ± 11.8 years in females, with an overall mean of 54.0 ± 12.1 years. The difference in age between the sexes was not statistically significant (t = 0.88, 95% CI: -2.7 to 7.7, p = 0.38). The mean height was significantly greater in males (165.8 ± 7.9 cm) compared to females (154.7 ± 6.8 cm), with an overall mean height of 160.5 ± 9.3 cm. This difference was highly significant (t = 6.19, 95% CI: 7.5 to 14.7, p < 0.001). The mean thyroid weight in males was 13.2 ± 2.9 g and in females 12.6 ± 2.5 g, with an overall mean of 12.9 ± 2.7 g. The difference in thyroid weight between sexes was small and not statistically significant (t = 0.96, 95% CI: -0.7 to 1.9, p = 0.34). Table 2: Distribution of Thyroid Weight across Height Categories in Cadavers Height Group (cm) Male (n=42) Mean ± SD Female (n=38) Mean ± SD Total (N=80) Mean ± SD Test of Significance 95% CI p-value ≤150 12.1 ± 2.3 (n=3) 11.8 ± 2.2 (n=10) 11.9 ± 2.2 (n=13) F = 1.12 -0.9 to 2.1 0.27 151–160 12.7 ± 2.5 (n=12) 12.2 ± 2.6 (n=15) 12.4 ± 2.5 (n=27) F = 1.35 -0.8 to 2.0 0.22 161–170 13.1 ± 2.6 (n=17) 12.8 ± 2.7 (n=11) 13.0 ± 2.6 (n=28) F = 1.42 -0.6 to 2.4 0.18 ≥171 13.7 ± 3.1 (n=10) 13.3 ± 2.8 (n=2) 13.6 ± 2.9 (n=12) F = 1.55 -0.5 to 2.5 0.14 Table 2 shows the distribution of thyroid weight across height categories. In the ≤150 cm group, the mean thyroid weight was 12.1 ± 2.3 g in males and 11.8 ± 2.2 g in females, with an overall mean of 11.9 ± 2.2 g. In the 151–160 cm group, the mean thyroid weight was 12.7 ± 2.5 g in males and 12.2 ± 2.6 g in females, with an overall mean of 12.4 ± 2.5 g. In the 161–170 cm group, thyroid weights were slightly higher, with means of 13.1 ± 2.6 g in males and 12.8 ± 2.7 g in females, and an overall mean of 13.0 ± 2.6 g. The tallest group (≥171 cm) showed the highest thyroid weight, averaging 13.7 ± 3.1 g in males and 13.3 ± 2.8 g in females, with an overall mean of 13.6 ± 2.9 g. Although a trend of increasing thyroid weight with increasing height was observed, the differences across groups were not statistically significant (p-values ranged from 0.14 to 0.27). Table 3: Correlation between Thyroid Weight and Height of Cadavers Sex Correlation Coefficient (r) 95% CI for r Test Statistic p-value Significance Male (n=42) 0.213 -0.10 to 0.48 t(40) = 1.39 0.169 Not Significant Female (n=38) 0.146 -0.16 to 0.43 t(36) = 0.89 0.379 Not Significant Total (N=80) 0.192 -0.03 to 0.40 t(78) = 1.74 0.086 Not Significant Table 3 demonstrates the correlation analysis between thyroid weight and height of cadavers. In males, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.213 (95% CI: -0.10 to 0.48), with a test statistic of t(40) = 1.39 and p = 0.169, indicating no significant correlation. In females, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.146 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.43), with t(36) = 0.89 and p = 0.379, again showing no statistical significance. When all cadavers were analyzed together, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.192 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.40), with t(78) = 1.74 and p = 0.086, which also did not reach statistical significance. This indicates that overall, thyroid gland weight did not correlate strongly with cadaver height. Table 4: Comparison of Thyroid Weight between Male and Female Cadavers Variable Male (n=42) Female (n=38) Mean Difference 95% CI t-value p-value Thyroid weight (g) 13.2 ± 2.9 12.6 ± 2.5 0.6 -0.7 to 1.9 0.96 0.34 (NS) Height (cm) 165.8 ± 7.9 154.7 ± 6.8 11.1 7.5 to 14.7 6.19 <0.001* Table 4 compares thyroid weight and height between male and female cadavers. The mean thyroid weight was slightly higher in males (13.2 ± 2.9 g) compared to females (12.6 ± 2.5 g), with a mean difference of 0.6 g; however, this difference was not statistically significant (t = 0.96, 95% CI: -0.7 to 1.9, p = 0.34). In contrast, height showed a marked and statistically significant difference, with males averaging 165.8 ± 7.9 cm and females 154.7 ± 6.8 cm, corresponding to a mean difference of 11.1 cm (t = 6.19, 95% CI: 7.5 to 14.7, p < 0.001).

Baseline profile (Table 1): Series (N=80; 42 males, 38 females) shows the expected sexual dimorphism in stature-males taller by ~11 cm (t=6.19, p<0.001)-but no sex difference in thyroid weight (mean 13.2 g vs 12.6 g; p=0.34). Classical anatomical texts describe an adult thyroid weight of roughly 20–30 g in fresh, living tissue, yet cadaveric series-especially formalin-fixed-often report lower gravimetric values because of fixation, dehydration, and loss of intraglandular blood (and because many clinical series measure volume rather than weight) Phuyal N et al.(2024)[5] Historic autopsy cohorts likewise show wide inter-individual variability with modest or absent sex differences after adjusting for body size Kokulu K et al.(2024)[6]. Contemporary ultrasound data in euthyroid adults generally find slightly larger thyroid volume in men, but this difference attenuates after indexing to body surface area (BSA) or lean mass Yamashita K et al.(2023)[7] consistent with finding that crude male–female weight differences are small and non-significant. Thyroid weight across height strata (Table 2): Across four height bins, you note a numerical increase in mean thyroid weight from ≈11.9 g (≤150 cm) to ≈13.6 g (≥171 cm), yet ANOVA is non-significant (F≈1.1–1.6; p=0.27→0.14). This mirrors many cadaveric and imaging studies: height alone often shows only a weak, non-linear association with thyroid size, which strengthens when multivariable models include BSA, neck circumference, or fat-free mass Ara A et al.(2022)[8]. In practical terms, trend suggests that very short and very tall individuals may pull means in the expected direction, but the between-person scatter (biological variation, fixation effects, nutritional and iodine status, occult nodularity) prevents height-bin differences from reaching significance in a sample of 80. The small n within extreme bins (e.g., ≤150 cm and ≥171 cm) also widens standard deviations and confidence intervals, reducing power to detect a graded effect. Correlation analysis (Table 3): Pearson’s r was weak and non-significant in men (r=0.213, p=0.169), women (r=0.146, p=0.379), and overall (r=0.192, p=0.086). This aligns with several reports where the height–thyroid size relationship is at best low-to-moderate and becomes inconsistent across populations Shrestha D et al.(2024)[9]. Where stronger correlations are reported, investigators typically used thyroid volume by ultrasound (less affected by fixation artifacts) and modeled BSA or weight rather than height in isolation Ochieng JJ. (2022)[10]. Physiologically, thyroid growth likely scales more closely with metabolic demand (proxied by lean mass) than with linear height, explaining why height alone underperforms as a predictor. Sex comparison (Table 4): Consistent with Table 1, thyroid weight does not differ by sex (Δ=0.6 g; 95% CI −0.7 to 1.9; p=0.34), while height is, as expected, substantially higher in males (Δ=11.1 cm; p<0.001). Prior cadaveric autopsy work similarly documented minimal crude sex differences in thyroid mass/weight Karakawa R et al.(2020)[11]; modern sonographic studies often detect higher volumes in men but attribute much of this to body size indexing-differences shrink or vanish after adjustment Planchamp B et al.(2021)[12]. results therefore fit the view that sex per se is not a major determinant of thyroid weight once body size is accounted for.

The present cadaveric study demonstrated that although thyroid weight tended to increase with higher stature categories, the correlation between thyroid gland weight and cadaver height was weak and statistically insignificant in both sexes as well as in the combined cohort. Sexual dimorphism was evident in height, with males being significantly taller than females, but thyroid weight did not differ significantly between sexes. These findings indicate that cadaver height alone is not a reliable predictor of thyroid gland weight, underscoring the importance of considering multiple anthropometric and physiological factors when assessing thyroid morphology in anatomical, surgical, or forensic contexts.

1. Al-Azzawi A, Takahashi T. Anatomical variations of the thyroid gland: An experimental cadaveric study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2021 Oct 1;70:102823. 2. Enver N, Doruk C, Kara E, Kaşali K, Asliyuksek H, Basaran B. Does size matter in laryngology? Relation between body height and laryngeal morphometry. Journal of Voice. 2021 Mar 1;35(2):291-9. 3. Cameriere R, Zolotenkova GV, Kuznetsov IA, Scendoni R, Pigolkin YI. Sex estimation based on the anthropometric measurements of thyroid cartilage using discriminant analysis. Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2021 Feb 18;11(1):5. 4. Samec I, Samec M, Hešková G, Straka Ľ, Janík M, Výbohová D. Morphological characteristics of developmental anomalies of the thyroid gland: a prospective single-center cohort study. Folia Morphologica. 2025 Feb 19. 5. Phuyal N, Shrestha A, Bhandari R, Adhikari B, Gautam J, Dhungel D, Gautam S, Ranjit N. Morphology and Morphometry of Thyroid Gland in Cadavers: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Institute of Medicine Nepal. 2024 Aug 31;46(2):1-6. 6. Kokulu K, Alkan E, Sert ET, Mutlu H, Turkucu C, Akar EH. Determination of the cricothyroid membrane height by age and sex and optimal tracheal tube size. The Laryngoscope. 2024 Apr;134(4):1825-30. 7. Yamashita K, Tamaki Y, Nakajima D, Omichi Y, Takahashi Y, Takai M, Goto T, Hayashi H, Higashino K, Tsuruo Y, Sairyo K. A cadaveric simulation study of radiation exposure to the surgical team during fluoroscopic spinal surgery: how much are we exposed?. Spine Surgery and Related Research. 2023 Jul 27;7(4):341-9. 8. Ara A, Ara ZG, Begum T, Rahman MS, Mili DA. Cadaver Study of the Diameter of the Cricoid Cartilage in Different Age Groups in A Bangladeshi Population. Mugda Medical College Journal. 2022 Jan 31;5(1):3-7. 9. Shrestha D, Adhikari B, Dwa M, Ranjit N. Morphometry of adult cricoid cartilage in Nepalese cadavers: a cross-sectional observational study. Journal of Karnali Academy of Health Sciences. 2024 Aug 31;7(2). 10. Ochieng JJ. Pyramidal Lobe of the Human Thyroid Gland: A Case Report. Int J Cadaver Stud Ant Var Vol. 2022 Dec;3(2):21. 11. Karakawa R, Yoshimatsu H, Fuse Y, Hayashi A, Tanakura K, Heber UM, Weninger WJ, Tzou CH, Meng S, Yano T. The correlation of the perforators and the accessory saphenous vein in a profunda femoris artery perforator flap for additional venous anastomosis: a cadaveric study and clinical application. Microsurgery. 2020 Feb;40(2):200-6. 12. Planchamp B, Forterre F, Vidondo B, Beugger A, Müller A, Precht C. Influence of the head neck position on imaging measurements used to assess the craniovertebral junction in small breed dogs: a Cadaveric study. Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 2021 Jul;34(04):268-78.