SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2023
Inter-population differences in acetabular senescence: relevance in age-at-death estimation.
Synthesis in International journal of legal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of DRNNAGE for macroscopic age-at-death estimation in contemporary Brazilian identified skeletons.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Three methods of estimating age-at-death using three different regions on the os coxa.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Prevalence of directional asymmetry within the acetabulum and its implications for age estimation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy and challenges in age estimation in adults: a scoping review of anthropological, dental, biochemical, and molecular methods.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- Applicability, reliability, and accuracy of age-at-death estimation methods on a contemporary Italian population.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Since investigation of the timing of the skeletal traits among the acetabula of different populations is lacking, this study aims to evaluate the relevance of geographical origin in the acetabulum aging process and in the usability of the SanMillán-Rissech aging method. The acetabula of 826 European North Americans derived from the Bass Collection (USA) have been analyzed and compared with 611 Portuguese acetabula from the Luis Lopes Collection (Portugal) applying the most updated acetabular age estimation technique (2017). After evaluating and comparing the acetabular aging rates between both populations by Mann-Whitney U tests, the inaccuracy values (bias and absolute error) were analyzed and compared using population-specific reference samples and using references differing in geographical origin by Wilcoxon tests. In general terms, the North Americans age faster than the Portuguese, especially the females, reaching the consecutive acetabular stages at younger ages. Regarding the SanMillán-Rissech method accuracy, using population-specific reference samples produces, as a general rule, better outcomes. In addition, an exhaustive meta-analysis of inaccuracy values has demonstrated that this method provides better estimation values than pubic symphysis and auricular surfaces regardless of the geographic coherence of the reference sample. These inter-population skeletal differences are derived from different factors than age, highlighting the impact of both biological and social background on age estimation. A thorough analysis of the skeletal age-based timing becomes essential to understanding, deciphering and being able to minimize bias and potential inaccuracy or even counteract them when applying the age estimation methods to different populations.
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.