4.3 Article

Estimation and evidence in forensic anthropology: Age-at-death

期刊

JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 541-557

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00710.x

关键词

forensic science; pubic symphysis; probit analysis; likelihood ratio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A great deal has previously been written about the use of skeletal morphological changes in estimating ages-at-death. This article looks in particular at the pubic symphysis, as it was historically one of the first regions to be described in the literature on age estimation. Despite the lengthy history, the value of the pubic symphysis in estimating ages and in providing evidence for putative identifications remains unclear. This lack of clarity primarily stems from the fact that rather ad hoc statistical methods have been applied in previous studies. This article presents a statistical analysis of a large data set (n = 1766) of pubic symphyseal scores from multiple contexts, including anatomical collections, war dead, and victims of genocide. The emphasis is in finding statistical methods that will have the correct coverage. Coverage means that if a method has a stated coverage of 50%, then approximately 50% of the individuals in a particular pubic symphyseal stage should have ages that are between the stated age limits, and that approximately 25% should be below the bottom age limit and 25% above the top age limit. In a number of applications it is shown that if an appropriate prior age-at-death distribution is used, then transition analysis will provide accurate coverages, while percentile methods, range methods, and means (+/- standard deviations) will not. Even in cases where there are significant differences in the mean ages-to-transition between populations, the effects on the stated age limits for particular coverages are minimal. As a consequence, more emphasis needs to be placed on collecting data on age changes in large samples, rather than focusing on the possibility of inter-population variation in rates of aging.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据