ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2024
Comparing Walker's (2008) skull trait sex estimation standard to proteomic sex estimation for a group of South Asian individuals.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Deep learning versus human assessors: forensic sex estimation from three-dimensional computed tomography scans.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sex estimation techniques based on skulls in forensic anthropology: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research assesses the potential for misidentification of sex in individuals of South Asian ancestry using the Walker (2008) morphological skull sex estimation standard [1]. Chromosomal sex was assessed using proteomic analysis targeting sex chromosome-specific amylogenic peptides. Results showed that the Walker method produced incorrect classification for 36.7 % of individuals. Overwhelmingly, those incorrectly assigned were chromosomally male. Misidentification was due to males within the group having lower trait scores (i.e., more gracile traits) than the standard would predict. There was also a high level of overlap in trait scores between male and females indicating reduced expression of sexual dimorphism. The use of established multivariate statistical techniques improved accuracy of sex estimation in some cases, but larger osteological data sets from South Asian individuals are required to develop population-specific standards. We suggest that peptide analysis may provide a useful tool for the forensic anthropologist when assessing sex in populations without population specific osteological standards.
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.