On the reliability of a geometric morphometric approach to sex determination: A blind test of six criteria of the juvenile ilium

Forensic Science International

Volumn 206, Issue 1-3, 2011, Pages 35-42

  Wilson, Laura A B ^a   Cardoso, Hugo F V ^b,c   Humphrey, Louise T ^d  

^a PALÄONTOLOGISCHES INSTITUT UND MUSEUM   (Switzerland)

^b Museu Nacional de Historia Natural Universidade de Lisboa   (Portugal)

^c University of Porto   (Portugal)

^d DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Forensic science; Geometric morphometrics; Ilium; Ontogeny; Sex determination

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADOLESCENT; AGE; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; ILIAC BONE; INFANT; JOINT; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; OBSERVER VARIATION; ONTOGENY; PORTUGAL; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; SCHOOL CHILD; SEX DETERMINATION; SEX DIFFERENCE; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 79952452028     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.06.014     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Scheuer L., Black S. Developmental Juvenile Osteology 2000, London Academic Press, London.
2. Saunders S.R. Juvenile skeletons and growth-related studies. Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton 2008, 117-147. Wiley-Liss, Hoboken, NJ. M.A. Katzenberg, S.R. Saunders (Eds.).
3. Fehling H. Die form des beckens beim fötus und neugeborenen und ihre bezierhung zu der beim erwaschsenen. Arch. Gynäkol. 1876, 10:1-80.
4. Thompson A. The sexual differences of the foetal pelvis. J. Anat. Physiol. 1899, 33:359-380.
5. Boucher B.J. Sex differences in the foetal sciatic notch. J. Forensic Med. 1955, 2:51-54.
6. Weaver D.S. Sex differences in the ilia of a known sex and age sample of fetal and infant skeletons. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1980, 52(2):191-195.
7. Hunt D.R. Sex determination in the subadult ilia: an indirect test of Weavers non-metric sexing method. J. Forensic Sci. 1990, 35:881-885.
8. Holcomb S.M.C., Konigsberg L.W. Statistical study of sexual dimorphism in the human fetal sciatic notch. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1995, 97:113-125.
9. Schutkowski H. Geschlechtsdifferente Merkmale an kindlichen Skeletten, Kentnisstand und diagnostische Beduetung. Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 1986, 76:149-168.
10. Schutkowski H. Sex determination of infant and juvenile skeletons. I. Morphognostic features. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1993, 90:199-205.
11. Sutter R.C. Nonmetric subadult skeletal sexing traits. I. A blind test of the accuracy of eight previously proposed methods using prehistoric known sex mummies from Northern Chile. J. Forensic Sci. 2003, 48(5):1-9.
12. Cardoso H.F.V., Saunders S.R. Two arch criteria of the ilium for sex determination of immature skeletal remains: a test of their accuracy and an assessment of intra- and inter-observer error. Forensic Sci. Int. 2008, 178:24-29.
13. Vlak D., Roksandic M., Schillaci M.A. Greater sciatic notch as a sex indicator in juveniles. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2008, 137(3):309-315.
14. Loth S.R., Henneberg M.B. Sexually dimorphic mandibular morphology in the first few years of life. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2001, 115:179-186.
15. Scheuer L.B. Brief communication: a blind test of mandibular morphology for sexing mandibles in the first few years of life. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2002, 119:189-191.
16. Mittler D.M., Sheridan S.G. Sex determination in subadults using auricular surface morphology: a forensic science perspective. J. Forensic Sci. 1992, 37(4):1068-1075.
17. Lohmann G.P., Schweitzer G.P. On eigenshape analysis. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology 1990, 145-166. Special Publication No. 2, Ann Arbour, Michigan. F.J. Rohlf, F.L. Bookstein (Eds.).
18. MacLeod N. Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape space visualization and analysis. Paleobiology 1999, 25:107-138.
19. Bookstein F.L. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: localizing group differences in outline shape. Med. Image Anal. 1997, 1:225-243.
20. Kuhl F.P., Giardina C.R. Elliptic Fourier features of a closed contour. Comput. Graph. Image Process. 1982, 18:236-258.
21. Zelditch M.L., Fink W.L., Swiderski D.L. Morphometrics, homology and phylogenetics: quantified characters as synapomorphies. Syst. Biol. 1995, 44:179-189.
22. Lawing A.M., Polly P.D. Geometric morphometrics: recent applications to the study of evolution and development. J. Zool. 2009, 280:1-7.
23. Wilson L.A., MacLeod N., Humphrey L.T. Morphometric criteria for sexing juvenile human skeletons using the ilium. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:269-278.
24. Perez S.I., Bernal V., Gonzalez P.N. Differences between sliding semi-landmarks in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation. J. Anat. 2006, 208:769-784.
25. Scheuer J.L., Black S.M. The St. Bride's Documented Skeletal Collection 1995, University of Glasgow.
26. Cardoso H.F.V. Brief communication: the collection of identified human skeletons housed at the Bocage Museum (National Museum of Natural History), Lisbon, Portugal. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2006, 129(2):173-176.
27. von Cramon-Taubadel N., Frazier B.C., Lahr M.M. The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: theory, methods, and modifications. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2007, 134:24-35.
28. Arnqvist G., Martensson T. Measurement error in geometric morphometrics: empirical strategies to assess and reduce its impact on measures of shape. Acta Zool. Acad. Scentiar. Hung. 1998, 44:73-96.
29. Rohlf F.J. tpsDig, digitize landmarks and outlines, version 2.0. Department of Ecology and Evolution 2004, State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York.
30. R Development Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2008.
31. Zahn C.T., Roskies R.Z. Fourier shape descriptors for closed plane curves. IEEE Trans. Comput. 1972, 21:269-281.
32. N. MacLeod, Eigenshape 2.1, Natural History Museum, London, UK.
33. Bayes T. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Biometrika 1958, 45:296-315.
34. Klepinger L., Giles E. Clarification or confusion: statistical interpretation in forensic anthropology. Forensic Osteology: Advance in the Identification of Human Remains 1998, 435-439. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL. K.J. Reichs (Ed.).
35. Steadman D.W., Adams B.J., Konigsberg L.W. Statistical basis for positive identification in forensic anthropology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2006, 131:15-26.
36. Zar J.H. Biostatistical Analysis 1999, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, pp. 310-326. 4th ed.
37. Phenice T.W. A newly developed visual method of sexing the os pubis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1969, 30:297-302.
38. Bruzek J. A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2002, 117:157-168.
39. Rogers T., Saunders S. Accuracy of sex determination using morphological traits of the human pelvis. J. Forensic Med. 1994, 39:1047-1056.
40. Cardoso H.F.V. Sample-specific (universal) metric approaches for determining the sex of immature human skeletal remains using permanent tooth dimensions. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2008, 35:158-168.
41. Stinson S. Sex differences in environmental sensitivity during growth and development. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 1985, 28:123-147.
42. Molleson T., Cruse K., Mays S. Some sexually dimorphic features of the human juvenile skull and their value in sex determination in immature skeletal remains. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1998, 25:719-728.
43. Bulygina E., Mitteroecker P., Aiello L. Ontogeny of facial dimorphism and patterns of individual development within one human population. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2006, 131:432-443.
44. Hager L. Sex differences in the sciatic notch of great apes and modern humans. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1996, 99:287-300.
45. Fazekas I.G., Kósa F. Forensic Foetal Osteology 1978, Academiai Kiado, Budapest.
46. Humphrey L.T. Patterns of growth in the modern human skeleton. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1998, 105:57-72.