Accuracy and reliability of measurements obtained from computed tomography 3D volume rendered images

Forensic Science International

Volumn 238, Issue , 2014, Pages 133-140

  Stull, Kyra E ^a   Tise, Meredith L ^b   Ali, Zabiullah ^c   Fowler, David R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Bland Altman; Measurement error; Percent differences; Reliability; Technical error of measurement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOPSY; BONE EXAMINATION; CLAVICLE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; HUMERUS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MANDIBLE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; MEASUREMENT REPEATABILITY; OSTEOMETRY; PELVIC GIRDLE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIUS; SCAPULA; SKULL; ULNA; VALIDATION PROCESS; WHOLE BODY CT; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BONE; CEPHALOMETRY; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

BONE AND BONES; CEPHALOMETRY; FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 84897939775     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.03.005     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Decker S., Ford J., Hoegstrom E., Hilbelink D. Virtual skull Anatomy: Three-Dimensional Computer Modeling and Measurement of Human Cranial Anatomy. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2008, 14:312. Colorado Springs, CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
2. Robinson C., Eisma R., Morgan B., Jeffery A., Graham E.A.M., Black S., et al. Anthropological measurement of lower limb and foot bones using multi-detector computed tomography. J. Forensic Sci. 2008, 53:1289-1295.
3. Brough A.L., Bennett J., Morgan B., Black S., Rutty G.N. Anthropological measurement of the juvenile clavicle using multi-detector computed tomography-affirming reliability. J. Forensic Sci. 2013, 58:946-951.
4. Decker S. The Human in 3D: Advanced Morphometric Analysis of High-Resolution Anatomically Accurate Computed Models 2010, University of South Florida, Tampa.
5. O'Donnell C., Woodford N. Post-mortem radiology-a new sub-speciality?. Clin. Radiol. 2008, 63:1189-1194.
6. O'Donnell C., Iino M., Mansharan K., Leditscke J., Woodford N. Contribution of postmortem multidetector CT scanning to identification of the deceased in a mass disaster: experience gained from the 2009 Victorian bushfires. Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 205:15-28.
7. Daly B., Abboud S., Ali Z., Sliker C., Fowler D. Comparison of whole-body post mortem 3D CT and autopsy evaluation in accidental blunt force traumatic death using the abbreviated injury scale classification. Forensic Sci. Int. 2013, 225:20-26.
8. Sidler M., Jackowski C., Dirnhofer R., Vock P., Thali M. Use of multislice computed tomography in disaster victim identification-advantages and limitations. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007, 169:118-128.
9. Blau S., Briggs C.A. The role of forensic anthropology in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI). Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 205:29-35.
10. Hildebolt C.F., Vannier M.W., Knapp R.H. Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1990, 82:283-294.
11. Waitzman A.A., Posnick J.C., Armstrong D.C., Pron G.E. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: Part I. Accuracy and reproducibility. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 1992, 29:112-117.
12. Richtsmeier J.T., Paik C.H., Elfert P.C., Cole T.M., Dahlman H.R. Precision, repeatability, and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed tomography scans. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 1995, 32:217-227.
13. Valeri C.J., Cole T.M., Lele S., Richtsmeier J.T. Capturing data from three-dimensional surfaces using fuzzy landmarks. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1998, 107:113-124.
14. Citardi M.J., Herrmann B., Hollenbeak C.S., Stack B.C., Cooper M., Bucholz R.D. Comparison of scientific callipers and computer-enabled CT review for the measurement of skull base and craniomaxillofacial dimensions. Skull Base 2001, 11:5-11.
15. Williams F.L., Richtsmeier J.T. Comparison of mandibular landmarks from computed tomography and 3D digitizer data. Clin. Anat. 2003, 16:494-500.
16. Recent Advances in Postmortem Forensic Radiology. M. Toskas Forensic Pathology Reviews 2006, 355-404. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. B. Swift, G.N. Rutty (Eds.).
17. Lou L., Lagravere M.O., Compton S., Major P.W., Flores-Mir C. Accuracy of measurements and reliability of landmark identification with computed tomography (CT) techniques in the maxillofacial area: a systematic review. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2007, 104:402-411.
18. Lopes P.M.L., Moreira C.R., Perrella A., Antunes J.L., Cavalcanti M.G.P. 3-D volume rendering maxillofacial analysis of angular measurements by multislice CT. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2008, 105:224-230.
19. Verhoff M.A., Ramsthaler F., Krähahn J., Deml U., Gille R.J., Grabherr S., et al. Digital forensic osteology-possibilities in cooperation with the Virtopsy project. Forensic Sci. Int. 2008, 174:152-156.
20. Guyomarc'h P., Santos F., Dutailly B., Desbarats P., Bou C., Coqueugniot H. Three-dimensional computer-assisted craniometrics: a comparison of the uncertainty in measurement induced by surface reconstruction performed by two computer programs. Forensic Sci. Int. 2012, 219:221-227.
21. Sholts S.B., Flores L., Walker P.L., Wärmländer S.K.T.S. Comparison of coordinate measurement precision of different landmark types on human crania using a 3D laser scanner and a 3D digitiser: Implications for applications of digital morphometrics. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2011, 21:535-543.
22. Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 Supreme Court 2786, 1993.
23. Dirkmaat D.C., Cabo L.L., Ousley S.D., Symes S.A. New perspectives in forensic anthropology. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 2008, 51:33-52.
24. Melnick R.L. A Daubert motion: a legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation. Am. J. Public Health 2005, 95(Suppl. 1):S30-S34.
25. Ousley S. Should we estimate biological or forensic stature?. J. Forensic Sci. 1995, 40:768-773.
26. Ulijaszek S., Kerr D. Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br. J. Nutr. 1999, 82:165-177.
27. Adams B.J., Byrd J.E. Interobserver variation of selected postcranial skeletal measurements. J. Forensic Sci. 2002, 47:1-10.
28. Goto R., Mascie-Taylor N. Precision of measurement as a component of human variation. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2007, 26:253-256.
29. Buikstra J.E., Ubelaker D.H. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History 1994, Arkansas Archaeological Research Series, Fayetteville.
30. Urcid J. Manual for Post-Cranial Measurements 1992, Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC.
31. Ousley S., Jantz R. FORDISC 3.1 2005, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
32. Bland M., Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 307-310.
33. Rothwell P. Analysis of agreement between measurements of continuous variables: general principles and lessons from studies of imaging of carotid stenosis. J. Neurol. 2000, 415:825-834.
34. Geeta A., Jamaiyah H., Safiza M., Khor G., Kee C., Ahmad A., et al. Reliability, technical error of measurements and validity of instruments for nutritional status assessment of adults in Malaysia. Singapore Med. J. 2009, 50:1013-1018.
35. Harris E.F., Smith R.N. Accounting for measurement error: a critical but often overlooked process. Arch. Oral Biol. 2009, 54(Suppl. 1):S107-S117.
36. Perini T., de Oliveira G., dos Santos Ornellas J., de Oliveira F. Technical error of measurement in anthropometry. Rev. Bras. Med. Esporte 2005, 11.
37. Stull K. An Osteometric Evaluation of Age and Sex Differences in the Long Bones of South African Children from the Western Cape, Dissertation 2013, University of Pretoria.
38. Stull K.E., L'abbé E.N., Steiner S. Measuring distortion of skeletal elements in Lodox Statscan-generated images. Clin. Anat. 2013, 26:780-786.
39. Green W., Wyatt G., Anderson M. Orthoroentgenography as a method of measuring the bones of the lower extremities. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1946, 28:60-65.
40. Maresh M. Linear growth of long bones of extremities from infancy through adolescence. Am. J. Dis. Child. 1955, 89:725-742.
41. Anderson M., Messner M., Green W. Distribution lengths of the normal femur and tibia in children from one to eighteen years of age. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1964, 46A:1197-1202.
42. Buschang P. Differential long bone growth of children between two months and eleven years. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1982, 58:291-295.
43. Smith S., Buschang P. Variation in longitudinal diaphyseal long bone growth in children three to ten years of age. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2004, 16:648-657.
44. Smith S. Stature estimation of 3-10 year-old children from long bone lengths. J. Forensic Sci. 2007, 52:538-546.
45. WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study Group Reliability of anthropometric measurements in the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study. Acta Paediatr. Suppl. 2006, 450:38-46.
46. Sicotte M., Ledoux M., Zunzunegui M.-V., Aboubacrine S.A., Nguyen V.-K. Reliability of anthropometric measures in a longitudinal cohort of patients initiating ART in West Africa. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2010, 10:102.
47. Cardoso H.F.V., Abrantes J., Humphrey L.T. Age estimation of immature human skeletal remains from the diaphyseal length of the long bones in the postnatal period. Int. J. Legal Med. 2013, 10.1007/s00414-013-0925-5.
48. Decker S.J., Davy-Jow S.L., Ford J.M., Hilbelink D.R. Virtual determination of sex: metric and nonmetric traits of the adult pelvis from 3D computed tomography models. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 56:1107-1114.
49. Dryden I.L., Mardia K.V. Statistical Shape Analysis 1998, John Wiley & Sons, New York, (Chapters 1-3).
50. Bookstein F. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
51. Slice D., Untereggre C., Schaefer K., Bookstein F. Modeling the precision of landmark location data. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2004, 123(Suppl. 36):183.
52. Simonis-Sueur C., Friess M., Detroit F. Skull shapes, maps, and microscribes. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2009, (Suppl. 48):240.
53. Utermohle C., Zegura S. Intra- and interobserver error in craniometry: a cautionary tale. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1982, 57:303-310.
54. Utermohle C.J., Zegura S.L., Heathcote G.M. Multiple observers, humidity, and choice of precision statistics: factors influencing craniometric data quality. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1983, 61:85-95.
55. Gursky E.A., Fierro M.F. Death in Large Numbers: The Science, Policy, and Management of Mass Fatality Events 2012, American Medical Association, Atlanta, GA.
56. Ramsthaler F., Kettner M., Gehl A., Verhoff M.A. Digital forensic osteology: morphological sexing of skeletal remains using volume-rendered cranial CT scans. Forensic Sci. Int. 2010, 195:148-152.