ArticleScientific reports2020
A comparison of proteomic, genomic, and osteological methods of archaeological sex estimation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiproxy bioarchaeological analyses reveal subsistence shift in Bronze Age Central Europe.Science advances · 2026Article
- Sex Estimation through the Study of Computed Tomography of the Mandible.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Proteomic analysis of dental enamel from 20 Homo naledi individuals shows no male markers.Cell · 2026Article
- Revealing sex-specific changes across protein structure in the aging bone extracellular matrix.Matrix biology plus · 2026Article
- Sex classification using exocranial surfaces in a multi-population sample.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- ONYX: an alignment-free biological sex inference from high-throughput sequencing data.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Growing into gender: Funerary practice of boys and girls in the Bronze Age Maros culture (2100 - 1700 BC).Archaeological and anthropological sciences · 2026Article
- Coupling geometric morphometrics and machine learning for mandibular sex estimation in Late Pleistocene and Late Modern populations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Potential of Proteomics in Forensic Phenotyping: A Focus on Biological Sex Estimation.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Tracing chalcolithic population mobility using strontium isotopes and proteomics at Gumelnița site, Romania.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sex estimation in a Chilean population by mandibular analysis in cone beam computed tomography images.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Female sex bias in Iberian megalithic societies through bioarchaeology, aDNA and proteomics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- No Bones About It: Sex Is Binary.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Comparing Walker's (2008) skull trait sex estimation standard to proteomic sex estimation for a group of South Asian individuals.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2024Article
- Unbalanced sex-ratio in the Neolithic individuals from the Escoural Cave (Montemor-o-Novo, Portugal) revealed by peptide analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Isotopic and proteomic evidence for communal stability at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jericho in the Southern Levant.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Application of natural sciences methodology in archaeological study of Iron Age burials in Latvia: pilot study.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023Article
- Cranial and Odontological Methods for Sex Estimation-A Scoping Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Paleoproteomics.Chemical reviews · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sex estimation of skeletons is fundamental to many archaeological studies. Currently, three approaches are available to estimate sex-osteology, genomics, or proteomics, but little is known about the relative reliability of these methods in applied settings. We present matching osteological, shotgun-genomic, and proteomic data to estimate the sex of 55 individuals, each with an independent radiocarbon date between 2,440 and 100 cal BP, from two ancestral Ohlone sites in Central California. Sex estimation was possible in 100% of this burial sample using proteomics, in 91% using genomics, and in 51% using osteology. Agreement between the methods was high, however conflicts did occur. Genomic sex estimates were 100% consistent with proteomic and osteological estimates when DNA reads were above 100,000 total sequences. However, more than half the samples had DNA read numbers below this threshold, producing high rates of conflict with osteological and proteomic data where nine out of twenty conditional DNA sex estimates conflicted with proteomics. While the DNA signal decreased by an order of magnitude in the older burial samples, there was no decrease in proteomic signal. We conclude that proteomics provides an important complement to osteological and shotgun-genomic sex estimation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.