4.0 Article

Sexual dimorphism from vertebrae: its potential use for sex estimation in an identified osteological sample

期刊

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 546-558

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2020.1840629

关键词

Forensic anthropology population data; sex diagnosis; vertebra; logistic regression analysis; ROC analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sex estimation is crucial for personal identification in archaeological and medicolegal contexts. This study aimed to assess the sexual dimorphism of cervical and thoracic vertebrae and develop logistic regression equations for sex estimation using metric data. The results showed that the first cervical vertebra can be used for sex diagnosis when other sexually dimorphic anatomical regions are not available. The developed equations achieved accuracy rates between 80.0% and 92.5%.
In archaeological and medicolegal contexts, sex estimation is a crucial parameter for personal identification. However, it can be a complex task if the skeletal remains are damaged or fragmented. For this reason, it is important to establish reliable methodologies and techniques using alternative sexually dimorphic anatomical regions other than pelvic and skull, such as vertebrae. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the level of sexual dimorphism of first, second and seventh cervical and twelfth thoracic vertebrae from the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection of the University of Coimbra (Portugal) and to develop logistic regression equations for sex estimation based on metric data from these vertebrae. The sample comprised 73 individuals (38 males and 35 females) with a mean age of 50.10 +/- 18.34 years. Eleven multivariate logistic regression equations were developed with accuracy rates between 80.0% and 92.5%. The first cervical vertebra demonstrated to be useful for sex diagnosis when more sexually dimorphic anatomical regions (i.e., pelvis and skull) are not available or suitable for analysis.

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

4.0
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