Accuracy and reliability in sex determination from skulls: A comparison of Fordisc® 3.0 and the discriminant function analysis

Forensic Science International

Volumn 208, Issue 1-3, 2011, Pages 180.e1-180.e6

  Guyomarc'h, Pierre ^a   Bruzek, Jaroslav ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^b CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WEST BOHEMIA   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Fordisc ; Forensic anthropology population data; Identification; Population specificity; Skull

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY BUILD; CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE; DATA BASE; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ETHNICITY; FEMALE; FORENSIC DATA BANK; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; FRANCE; HUMAN; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY; SEX DETERMINATION; SKULL; THAILAND;

EID: 79955473474     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.03.011     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Krogman W.M., Iscan M.Y. The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine 1986, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield. 2nd ed.
2. Ferembach D., Stloukal M., Schwidetzky I. Recommandations pour déterminer l'âge et le sexe sur le squelette. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris 1979, 6:7-45.
3. Murail P., Bruzek J., Houët F., Cunha E. DSP: a tool for probalistic sex diagnosis using worldwide variation in hip-bone measurements. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris 2005, 17:167-176.
4. Waldron T. The relative survival of the human skeleton: implication for palaeopathology. Death, Decay and Reconstruction: Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic Science 1987, 55-64. Manchester University Press, Manchester. A. Boddindton, A.N. Garland, R.C. Janaway (Eds.).
5. Stojanowski C.M., Seidemann R.M., Doran G.H. Differential skeletal preservation at Windover Pond: causes and consequences. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2002, 119:15-26.
6. Grubweiser P., Mühlmann R., Berger B., Niederstätter H., Pavlic M., Parson W. A new "miniSTR-multiplex" displaying reduced amplicon lengths for the analysis of degraded DNA. International Journal of Legal Medicine 2006, 120:115-120.
7. Wurmb-Schwark N., Von Bosinkin H., Ritz-Timme S. What do the X and Y chromosomes tell us about sex and gender in forensic case analysis?. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2007, 14:27-30.
8. Bruzek J., Murail P. Methodology and reliability of sex determination from the skeleton. Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences From Recovery to Cause of Death 2006, 225-242. Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ. A. Schmitt, E. Cunha, J. Pinheiro (Eds.).
9. Acsadi G.Y., Nemeskeri J. History of Human Life Span and Mortality 1970, Akadémiai Kiadò, Budapest.
10. Walrath D.E., Turner P., Bruzek J. Reliability test of the visual assessment of cranial traits for sex determination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2004, 125:132-137.
11. Walker P.L. Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2008, 136:39-50.
12. Armitage P. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1971, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford. 1st ed.
13. Deshmukh A.G., Devershi D.B. Comparison of cranial sex determination by univariate and multivariate analysis. Journal of the Anatomical Society of India 2006, 55:48-51.
14. Giles E., Elliot O. Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1963, 21:53-68.
15. Henke W. Zur Methode der diskriminanzanalytischen Geschlechtsbestimmung am Schädel. HOMO-Journal of Comparative Human Biology 1973, 24:99-117.
16. Mays S., Cox M. Sex determination in skeletal remains. Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science 2000, 117-130. Greenwich Medial Media, London. M. Cox, S. Mays (Eds.).
17. Byers S.N. Introduction of Forensic Anthropology 2008, Pearson, Boston. 3rd ed.
18. Komar D.A., Buikstra J.E. Forensic Anthropology, Contemporary Theory and Practice 2008, Oxford University Press, New York.
19. Jantz R.L., Ousley S.D. FORDISC 3: Computerized Forensic Discriminant Functions. Version 3.0 2005, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
20. Ousley S.D., Jantz R.L. The forensic data bank: documenting skeletal trends in the United States. Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains 1998, 441-458. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL. K.J. Reichs (Ed.).
21. Howells W.W. Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference Among Recent Human Populations 1973, Harvard University.
22. Marquez-Grant N. The presence of African individuals in Punic populations from the island of Ibiza (Spain): contributions from physical anthropology. Mayurqa 2005, 30:611-637.
23. Lambert P.M. Infectious disease among enslaved African Americans at Eaton's Estate, Warren County, North Carolina, ca. 1830-1850. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 2006, 101:107-111.
24. Verhoff M.A., Ramsthaler F., Krähahn J., Deml U., Gille R.J., Grabherr S., Thali M.T., Kreutz K. Digital forensic osteology - possibilities in cooperation with the Virtopsy project. Forensic Science International 2008, 174:152-156.
25. Leach S., Lewis M., Chenery C., Müldner G., Eckardt H. Migration and diversity in Roman Britain: a multidisciplinary approach to the identification of immigrants in Roman York, England. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2009, 140:546-561.
26. Seidemann R.M., Stojanowski C.M., Rich F.J. The identification of a human skull recovered from an eBay sale. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009, 54:1247-1253.
27. Dirkmaat D.C., Cabo L.L., Ousley S., Symes S.A. New perspectives in forensic anthropology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 2008, 137:33-52.
28. Kosiba S. Assessing the efficacy and pragmatism of a 'race' designation in human skeletal identification: a test of Fordisc 2.0 program. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2000, S30:200.
29. Ubelaker D.H., Ross A.H., Graver S.M. Application of forensic discriminant functions to a Spanish cranial sample. Forensic Science Communications 2002, 4:1-6.
30. Williams F.E., Belcher R.L., Armelagos G.J. Forensic misclassification of ancient Nubian crania: implications for assumptions about human variation. Current Anthropology 2005, 46:340-346.
31. Elliott M., Collard M. Fordisc and the determination of ancestry from cranial measurements. Biology Letters 2009, 5:849-852.
32. Belcher R.L., Williams F.E., Armelagos G.J. Misidentification of Meroitic Nubians using Fordisc 2.0. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2002, 34:42.
33. Hubbe M., Neves W.A. On the misclassification of human crania. Are there any implications for assumptions about human variation?. Current Anthropology 2007, 48:285-288.
34. Keita S.O.Y. On Meroitic Nubian crania, Fordisc 2.0, and human biological history. Current Anthropology 2007, 48:425-427.
35. Pritchard B. Egyptian identities: application of Fordisc 2.0 to an Egyptian burial population. Newsletter of the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology 2007, 25.
36. Albanese J., Saunders S.R. Is it possible to escape racial typology in forensic identification?. Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences From Recovery to Cause of Death 2006, 281-316. Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ. A. Schmitt, E. Cunha, J. Pinheiro (Eds.).
37. Brace C.L. Region does not mean race - reality versus convention in forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1995, 40.
38. Armelagos G.J., Van Gerven D.P. A century of skeletal biology and paleopathology: contrasts, contradictions, and conflicts. American Anthropologists 2003, 105:53-64.
39. Edgar H.J.H., Hunley K.L. Race reconciled?: how biological anthropologists view human variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2009, 139:1-4.
40. Ousley S., Jantz R., Freid D. Understanding race and human variation: why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2009, 139:68-76.
41. Königsberg L.W., Algee-Hewitt B.F.B., Steadman D.W. Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: sex and race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2009, 139:77-90.
42. Bidmos M.A., Dayal M.R. Further evidence to show population specificity of discriminant function equations for sex determination using the talus of South African Blacks. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2004, 49:1-6.
43. Kemkes-Grottenhaler A. Sex determination by discriminant analysis: an evaluation of the reliability of patella measurements. Forensic Science International 2005, 147:129-133.
44. Gualdi-Russo E. Sex determination from the talus and calcaneus measurements. Forensic Science International 2007, 171:151-156.
45. Jantz R.L., Meadows-Jantz L. Secular change in craniofacial morphology. American Journal of Human Biology 2000, 12:327-338.
46. Wescott D.J., Jantz R.L. Assessing craniofacial secular change in American Blacks and Whites using geometric morphometry. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology 2005, 231-245. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, Chicago, IL. D.E. Slice (Ed.).
47. Ubelaker D.H. FORDISC 2.0: personal computer forensic discriminant functions. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 1998, 8:128-131.
48. Spradley M.K., Jantz R.L., Robinson A., Peccerelli F. Demographic change and forensic identification: problems in metric identification of Hispanic skeletons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2008, 53:21-28.
49. Schmeling A., Olze A., Reisinger W., Geserick G. Age estimation of living people undergoing criminal proceedings. The Lancet 2001, 358:89-90.
50. Ramsthaler F., Kreutz K., Verhoff M.A. Accuracy of metric sex analysis of skeletal remains using Fordisc based on a recent skull collection. Internal Journal of Legal Medicine 2007, 121:477-482.
51. Guyomarc'h P., Bruzek J. Dimorphisme sexuel du crâne de sujets identifiés (collection Olivier, MNHN, Paris): évaluation par morphométrie géométrique. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris 2010, 22:216-229.
52. Franklin D., Freedman L., Milne N. Three-dimensional technology for linear morphological studies: a re-examination of cranial variation in four southern African indigenous populations. HOMO-Journal of Comparative Human Biology 2005, 56:17-34.
53. Bräuer G. Osteometrie. Anthropologie. Handbuch der vergleichenden Biologie des Menschen 1988, 160-231. Fisher, Stuttgart, New York. R. Knussmann, R. Martin (Eds.).
54. Darroch J.N., Mosimann J.E. Canonical and principal components of shape. Biometrika 1985, 72:241-252.
55. Wienker C.W. Using biological data to challenge the reality of race. Perspectives Electronic Journal of the American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences 2005, 8(Fall).
56. Freid D., Spradley M.K., Jantz R.L., Ousley S.D. The truth is out there: how NOT to use Fordisc. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2005, S40:103.
57. Calcagno J.M. On the applicability of sexing human skeletal material by discriminant function analysis. Journal of Human Evolution 1981, 10:189-198.
58. Kolatorowicz A. Selection of variables for discriminant analysis of human crania for determining ancestry. Proc. of the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2006.
59. Zambrano C.J., Kolatorowicz A., Nawrocki S.P. Performance of FORDISC 2.0 using inaccurate measurements. Proc. of the 57th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2005.
60. Lawrie C. Is the Fordisc 3.0 a useful tool for the sex determination of the medieval population of Westerhus, Sweden?. Newsletter of the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology 2007, 2007:20.
61. Timm N.H. Applied Multivariate Analysis 2002, Springer, New York.