Which studies have used cadaveric measurements to determine average penis size?

1. The direct claim: Which studies actually measured penises on corpses — and what do they assert?

Multiple peer-reviewed investigations explicitly used cadavers to obtain penile measurements rather than relying on self-report, clinical stretched measures, or erect measurements. A high-profile anatomical correlation study measured 126 male cadavers to test a link between nose size and maximum stretched penile length, reporting a moderate positive correlation and arguing the relationship persisted independent of age and body size ^{[1] [2]}. A separate cross-sectional cadaveric study of 63 Japanese adult male corpses evaluated relationships among genital measurements, body metrics, and serum markers, reporting correlations such as penile length with body weight while finding penile circumference unrelated to length measures ^[3]. Other cadaveric dissections — for instance an anatomical paper dissecting the penile septum in 10 formalin-fixed cadavers — focus on structural description and functional relevance rather than population averages but nonetheless provide measured dimensions from postmortem specimens ^[4]. These studies establish that cadaveric data exist and have been used both for correlative hypotheses and anatomical description, producing results that differ in purpose and scale from population-average research ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

2. The controversial “big nose, big hose” cadaver study — methods and headline claims

The Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine-led research measured 126 cadavers and concluded that external nasal dimensions correlated with maximal stretched penile length, yielding a reported correlation coefficient indicating a moderate relationship. The authors framed this as evidence that nose size could signal maximum penile length independent of age and body-size confounders; media coverage amplified this as the “big nose, big hose” finding ^{[1] [2]}. The study’s cadaveric approach removes variability related to measuring erect length in living subjects and avoids self-report bias, but it introduces postmortem fixation and muscle tone changes that can alter soft-tissue dimensions, and its sample represents a specific population and time period. The study’s strength lies in objective physical measures on intact specimens; its limitation lies in extrapolating cadaveric stretched length to living erect function and in potential selection biases in the cadaver sample ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Cadaveric cross-sectional work in Japan — correlation focus rather than average-size claims

A cross-sectional cadaveric study of 63 Japanese male adults used postmortem measurements to analyze correlations among genital organ sizes, serum testosterone, and prostate-specific antigen, reporting that penile measures were mainly correlated with body weight while penile circumference did not correlate with length measures ^[3]. This study’s primary contribution is correlational anatomy in a defined cohort rather than construction of a global “average” penis size. The cadaveric context allowed researchers to pair organ measurements with serum markers and other internal metrics not feasible in most living-subject surveys, but results are population-specific and cannot be straightforwardly generalized. The postmortem environment, preservation methods, and demographic composition of the sample frame the findings; these must be weighed when interpreting both the internal validity of correlations and the external validity for population averages ^[3].

4. Anatomical dissections: rich detail, narrow scope — the septum study as an example

An anatomical dissection paper that examined the penile septum in 10 formalin-fixed cadavers provided high-resolution structural descriptions and measurements aimed at clarifying anatomy and functional hypotheses rather than estimating average penile length across populations ^[4]. Cadaveric dissection studies like this deliver granular morphologic insight—tissue layer relationships, septal attachments, and microanatomical measures—that clinical or survey studies cannot. Their small size and specialized aims, however, make them unsuitable as sources for population-level averages. They are invaluable for surgical anatomy and biomechanics research while offering limited epidemiological inference; interpreting their numeric measurements requires attention to fixation effects and the limited demographic diversity of cadaver collections ^[4].

5. How cadaveric work compares with large meta-analyses that define “average” penile length

Large systematic reviews and meta-analyses compiling tens of thousands of measurements — such as a 2023 worldwide temporal trends study aggregating 75 studies and 55,761 men — rely predominantly on in vivo stretched or erect and clinic-measured data, not cadavers, and thus report standardized averages used in public health and clinical counseling ^{[5] [6]}. Those reviews deliberately exclude many cadaveric studies or treat them separately because measurement posture (living, stretched, erect) and measurement context (self-report vs. clinician-measured) materially affect length estimates. Cadaveric studies reduce some biases (self-report, variable arousal states) but introduce others (postmortem tissue changes, nonrepresentative samples). The two approaches answer different questions: cadavers illuminate anatomical relationships and potential predictors, while large living-subject meta-analyses aim to estimate population averages and temporal trends ^{[5] [6] [1]}.

6. Bottom line: what to take from cadaveric evidence and where it matters

Cadaveric studies clearly exist and contribute meaningful anatomical and correlational data: notable works measured 126 and 63 cadavers for correlation studies and smaller series for anatomical description ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. They complement but do not replace large in vivo meta-analyses used to define average penile length globally because postmortem conditions and sample selection limit generalizability. Readers should treat cadaveric findings as robust for structural anatomy and hypothesis testing about correlates, but exercise caution when translating cadaveric measurements into claims about living-population averages or erect function; media-friendly angles (e.g., “big nose = big penis”) should be seen as simplified takeaways from a specific methodological context rather than universal truths ^{[1] [5] [4]}.