Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37269396›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2024

Demonstrating the empirical effect of population specificity of anthropological standards in a contemporary Australian population.

Lauren Swift, Zuzana Obertova, Daniel Franklin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lauren SwiftCentre for Forensic Anthropology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. lauren.swift@uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6669-8320
Zuzana ObertovaCentre for Forensic Anthropology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5847-2567
Daniel FranklinCentre for Forensic Anthropology, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2605-1343

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to differentiate individuals based on their biological sex is essential for the creation of an accurate anthropological assessment; it is therefore crucial that the standards that facilitate this are likewise accurate. Given the relative paucity of population-specific anthropological standards formulated specifically for application in the contemporary Australian population, forensic anthropological assessments have historically relied on the application of established methods developed using population geographically and/or temporally disparate. The aim of the present paper is, therefore, to assess the accuracy and reliability of established cranial sex estimation methods, developed from geographically distinct populations, as applied to the contemporary Australian population. Comparison between the original stated accuracy and sex bias values (where applicable) and those achieved after application to the Australian population provides insight into the importance of having anthropological standards optimised for application in specific jurisdictions. The sample analysed comprised computed tomographic (CT) cranial scans of 771 (385 female and 386 male) individuals collected from five Australian states/territories. Cranial CT scans were visualised as three-dimensional volume-rendered reconstructions using OsiriX®. On each cranium, 76 cranial landmarks were acquired, and 36 linear inter-landmark measurements were calculated using MorphDB. A total of 35 predictive models taken from Giles and Elliot (1963), Iscan et al. (1995), Ogawa et al. (2013), Steyn and İşcan (1998) and Kranioti et al. (2008) were tested. Application to the Australian population resulted in an average decrease in accuracy of 21.2%, with an associated sex bias range between - 64.0 and 99.7% (average sex bias value of 29.6%), relative to the original studies. The present investigation has highlighted the inherent inaccuracies of applying models derived from geographically and/or temporally disparate populations. It is, therefore, imperative that statistical models developed from a population consistent with the decedent be used for the estimation of sex in forensic casework.

Indexed as

Multidetector Computed TomographySex Determination by SkeletonAustraliaDiscriminant AnalysisFemaleForensic AnthropologyHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsCranial measurementsForensic anthropologyPopulation specificitySex estimationSexual dimorphism

Identifiers

PMID37269396
PMCPMC10861720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.