Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37526736›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2023

Sex estimation from long bones: a machine learning approach.

Siam Knecht, Fréderic Santos, Yann Ardagna, Véronique Alunni, Pascal Adalian, Luísa Nogueira

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Constancy of Sexual Dimorphism in the Infracranial Skeleton.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. No Bones About It: Sex Is Binary.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024
    Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Siam KnechtAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADES, 13007, Marseille, France. siam.knecht@gmail.com.
Fréderic SantosUniversité de Bordeaux - CNRS-MCC, UMR 5199 PACEA, Bâtiment B8A, Allée Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 33615, Pessac Cedex, CS 50023, France.
Yann ArdagnaAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADES, 13007, Marseille, France.
Véronique AlunniInstitut Universitaire d'Anthropologie Médico-Légale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Côte d'Azur, 28 Avenue de Valombrose, 06107, Cedex 2, Nice, France.
Pascal AdalianAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, EFS, ADES, 13007, Marseille, France.
Luísa NogueiraInstitut Universitaire d'Anthropologie Médico-Légale, Faculté de Médecine, Université Côte d'Azur, 28 Avenue de Valombrose, 06107, Cedex 2, Nice, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sex estimation from skeletal remains is one of the crucial issues in forensic anthropology. Long bones can be a valid alternative to skeletal remains for sex estimation when more dimorphic bones are absent or degraded, preventing any estimation from the first intention methods. The purpose of this study was to generate and compare classification models for sex estimation based on combined measurement of long bones using machine learning classifiers. Eighteen measurements from four long bones (radius, humerus, femur, and tibia) were taken from a total of 2141 individuals. Five machine learning methods were employed to predict the sex: a linear discriminant analysis (LDA), penalized logistic regression (PLR), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural network (ANN). The different classification algorithms using all bones generated highly accuracy models with cross-validation, ranging from 90 to 92% on the validation sample. The classification with isolated bones ranked between 83.3 and 90.3% on the validation sample. In both cases, random forest stands out with the highest accuracy and seems to be the best model for our investigation. This study upholds the value of combined long bones for sex estimation and provides models that can be applied with high accuracy to different populations.

Indexed as

Forensic AnthropologyMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerSex Determination by SkeletonAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiscriminant AnalysisFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSupport Vector MachineYoung AdultForensic anthropologyLong bonesMachine learning algorithmsSex predictionSexual dimorphismStatistical models

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.