Baldness by Country: What Can the Figures Actually Tell Us?

Why should country rankings be treated cautiously?

Comparing two countries first requires a shared definition of baldness. The word might describe slight recession at the hairline, reduced coverage at the crown or extensive loss. If one survey counts early changes while another includes only severe cases, their percentages answer different questions. Placing them in the same column creates a misleading comparison, even if both calculations are correct within their original studies.

Researchers also need participants who represent the population they intend to describe. Online survey volunteers, platform users and hospital patients have particular characteristics. A large sample may be useful for investigating those groups without representing an entire country. More participants do not, by themselves, remove bias in recruitment. The way people enter a study matters as much as the final number enrolled.

Age must also be considered. A survey with more older men may find more baldness than one concentrating on young adults. A rigorous comparison specifies age groups and may adjust the results to compare populations with a similar age structure. A crude percentage presented without that information conceals a potentially substantial difference between the samples being compared.

Figures displayed to two decimal places do not prove that two countries occupy genuinely different positions. The uncertainty around each estimate, the number of participants from each country and the methods used all matter. Without them, a tiny numerical gap can be given excessive significance. The publications below provide useful observations, but together they do not amount to a single, standardised worldwide survey.

What counts as baldness in a study?

The research cited here concerns androgenetic alopecia, progressive male or female pattern hair loss. It does not measure every cause of hair shedding. Temporary loss following an illness, alopecia areata and hair loss caused by traction should therefore not be added indiscriminately to these results. A statistic about one condition cannot automatically describe the whole range of hair problems.

Prevalence is the proportion of a defined group affected at a particular time or during the period studied. It does not describe the number of new cases developing each year. Nor does it establish the likelihood that someone currently without hair loss will develop baldness during their lifetime. Confusing these measurements changes what the figure actually means for the reader.

The way a case is recognised matters as much as the calculation. The Norwood scale describes different male patterns of hair loss. Research restricted to categories VI and VII selects advanced presentations and leaves out men with less extensive loss. Its result will therefore differ from a survey that includes early changes, even if the people assessed otherwise have similar characteristics.

Direct scalp examination, interpretation of photographs and the presence of a diagnosis in a medical record are also different methods. Someone may have thinning hair without ever seeking advice or having it documented in their notes. Reading “recorded diagnosis” as “everyone affected” then overlooks people whom the study’s method could not identify. The absence of an entry is not equivalent to an examination showing no hair loss.

What the international study using photographs found

Avital and colleagues published a study in 2015 using profiles from two dating websites. They examined 26,340 profiles of men aged 30 to 40, described as Caucasian under the study criteria. Using the available photographs, the researchers looked for severe androgenetic alopecia corresponding to grades VI and VII, rather than attempting to count every degree of thinning.

After excluding profiles that could not be classified, the analysis covered 24,702 men. Severe hair loss was identified in 15.33% of that group. This does not mean that 15.33% of all men were bald, or that the remaining participants had no androgenetic alopecia. The remainder included men whose hair loss was less advanced than the threshold chosen for the study.

The authors observed geographical variation, but recruitment limits its interpretation. Joining a dating website, uploading usable photographs and declaring a place of residence do not constitute a representative sample of a country’s population. Self-reported information and photographs also did not replace individual medical examinations capable of excluding every other explanation for visible hair loss. Some profiles could not be assessed at all.

The value of this research lies in exploring a method and associations within a specific group. It cannot turn every country represented into a national estimate valid across all ages. The explanations suggested for geographical differences remain separate from the observations themselves: the study does not demonstrate that a climate or a nationality causes baldness. Such hypotheses require evidence beyond the comparison reported here.

Two local surveys in Turkey and India

In Istanbul, Salman and colleagues studied 954 people older than 16 attending a dermatology outpatient clinic. Published in 2017, the study included 419 men and 535 women. Androgenetic alopecia was identified in 67.1% of the men and 23.9% of the women using the examination criteria chosen. Those are results from this clinic, rather than percentages describing everyone living in Turkey.

Most participants had not attended specifically because of their baldness. It would therefore be wrong to describe the sample as consisting entirely of people seeking hair treatment, but that does not remove the limitations of hospital recruitment. The authors acknowledge this limitation. Ages varied widely, and the small oldest age groups could not provide estimates as robust as those based on more participants.

The survey by Krupa Shankar and colleagues, published in 2009, examined 1,005 men in Bangalore and reported androgenetic alopecia in 58%. Despite “population-based” appearing in its title, recruitment took place over one week in and around a hospital, involving patients, accompanying people and professionals. That setting alone does not represent the male population of India, including people who never passed through the recruitment area.

Participants were aged 30 to 49, with very few men in the oldest age band. The classification included mild grades, unlike Avital’s photographic study. Directly comparing the 58% in Bangalore with the 15.33% of profiles showing severe loss would therefore compare different definitions and recruitment methods. It would not isolate a difference between countries, even though both percentages come from published research.

In the United States, medical records chiefly describe recorded diagnoses

The study by Gupta, Wang and Economopoulos, published in 2025, used the American All of Us programme. Its cross-sectional analysis included 266,612 participants with the required data. Researchers identified an androgenetic alopecia diagnosis in the records of 286 men and 706 women. They did not systematically examine every participant’s hair to determine how many had visible signs of the condition.

This distinction explains why those counts cannot be treated as a direct measurement of all baldness in the United States. Someone who has never sought advice about their hair may have no recorded diagnosis. Access to appointments and whether hair loss is discussed during healthcare visits consequently influence what the records can count. People with similar hair may therefore be represented differently in the data.

The authors found associations with income and education, discussing possible roles for access to care and treatment-seeking. Their analysis does not establish that these characteristics cause or prevent baldness. The comparisons were not adjusted for age, among other limitations. This research describes associations within an American cohort; it is not a worldwide comparison of prevalence using the same examination method in every country.

Nor is it a meta-analysis bringing together comparable national surveys. A large collection of records provides information about a population and its healthcare, but does not change the nature of the underlying data. When interpreting a figure, reading the methods is therefore more useful than relying on the sample size or the recent publication date. A newer article may still be answering a different question.

Nationality, family history and sex are not interchangeable

A country of residence includes people with diverse family backgrounds and life histories. Nationality is therefore not a test of susceptibility to hair loss. Even when a study distinguishes ancestry categories, its findings relate to the groups and definitions it selected. They cannot predict an individual’s future hair from a passport or appearance, and they should not be used to make assumptions about someone you meet.

Family history may contribute to an assessment of hereditary hair loss. That does not justify assigning a whole population the same hormonal sensitivity or explaining a country ranking through a single gene. The surveys described here also cannot isolate the individual effects of national diets, sunlight or a lifestyle assumed to be shared by everyone in a particular place.

Findings in men cannot automatically be transferred to women. A study involving men alone provides no direct estimate of female prevalence. Conversely, finding more recorded female diagnoses in a database, as in All of Us, does not establish that women throughout that country are more affected than men. Consultation patterns and the way diagnoses are documented also influence those counts and must remain part of the interpretation.

This caution does not dismiss differences that have actually been observed. It prevents those differences being given explanations the study has not tested. When reading a comparison, establish whether it concerns examined signs, severe hair loss or people who have received a diagnosis. All three findings can be accurate in their own setting without describing the same aspect of hair loss across a population.

What do these figures mean for your own hair loss?

A country’s position in a ranking cannot tell you whether your temples will recede or how quickly. If you notice a change, describe when it began and how it has developed: gradual thinning, a recent increase in shedding or defined areas of loss. Early balding needs an individual assessment, without waiting for a statistic to confirm or dismiss your concern.

The NHS advises seeing a GP if hair loss is worrying you and understanding its cause before attending a commercial hair clinic. Some types of loss are temporary, while others persist. A doctor can investigate contributing factors when your history or examination suggests this is needed. None of those decisions depends on the percentage assigned to your country in an infographic or an online league table.

Distress deserves attention even when the visible change appears limited. Equally, noticeable baldness does not require treatment if it is not troubling you and its cause is understood. Monitoring, hairstyling, camouflage and medical care address different preferences. A population statistic should not become pressure to change your appearance, or a reason to minimise how you feel about a change that matters to you.

If surgery becomes part of the discussion, our hair transplant guide helps you prepare questions. A transplant relocates follicles and requires suitable donor hair; it does not prevent all further thinning of the remaining hair. The NHS also describes risks including scarring, infection and grafts failing to take. No geographical ranking measures the benefit you personally might obtain from an operation.

Choose a care pathway rather than a place in a league table

The reported frequency of baldness in a country and the quality of an operation are different matters. The number of procedures performed does not, by itself, demonstrate that every patient is suitable or every outcome satisfactory. For a surgical project, useful questions concern the medical assessment, the surgeon’s experience, the risks explained and the arrangements for follow-up after you return home.

You also need to understand the limits of the proposal: what coverage may be achievable, how continued thinning would be taken into account and whom to contact if a problem occurs. These details allow you to compare specific treatment plans. They contribute more to a decision than a list presenting certain populations as the most or least affected by baldness.

When preparing for a hair transplant in Istanbul with Body Expert, explain how your hair has changed, what you hope to achieve and which treatments you have already tried. English-speaking support helps with discussions about the proposed pathway. Suitability still depends on your own circumstances: a population figure cannot replace an assessment of your hair.

Sources

Avital, Y. S., Morvay, M., Gaaland, M., & Kemény, L. (2015). Study of the international epidemiology of androgenetic alopecia in young Caucasian men using photographs from the Internet. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 60(4), 419.

Salman, K. E., Altunay, I. K., Kucukunal, N. A., & Cerman, A. A. (2017). Frequency, severity and related factors of androgenetic alopecia in dermatology outpatient clinic: Hospital-based cross-sectional study in Turkey. Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, 92(1), 35–40.

Krupa Shankar, D. S., Chakravarthi, M., & Shilpakar, R. (2009). Male androgenetic alopecia: Population-based study in 1,005 subjects. International Journal of Trichology, 1(2), 131–133.

Gupta, A. K., Wang, T., & Economopoulos, V. (2025). Epidemiological landscape of androgenetic alopecia in the US: An All of Us cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE, 20(2), e0319040.

NHS. (2024, January 24). Hair loss.

NHS. (2023, September 29). Hair transplant.