死亡年龄估计:法医人类学常用年龄报告策略的准确性和可靠性

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, LEGAL Forensic Sciences Research Pub Date : 2023-03-20 DOI:10.3390/forensicsci3010014
Christine Bailey, Giovanna M. Vidoli
{"title":"死亡年龄估计:法医人类学常用年龄报告策略的准确性和可靠性","authors":"Christine Bailey, Giovanna M. Vidoli","doi":"10.3390/forensicsci3010014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forensic anthropologists build a biological profile—consisting of sex, age, population affinity, and stature estimates—to assist medicolegal stakeholders in the identification of unknown human skeletal remains. While adult age-at-death estimations can narrow the pool of potential individuals, a lack of standards, best practices, and consensus among anthropologists for method selection and the production of a final age estimate present significant challenges. The purpose of this research is to identify age-reporting strategies that provide the most accurate and reliable (i.e., low inaccuracy and low bias) adult age-at-death estimates when evaluated considering the total sample, age cohort (20–39; 40–59; 60–79), and sex. Age-reporting strategies in this study were derived from six age-at-death estimation methods and tested on 58 adult individuals (31 males, 27 females) from the UTK Donated Skeletal Collection. An experienced-based estimation strategy was also assessed. A paired-samples t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimated age and the actual age for all age-reporting strategies. Results show that the most accurate and reliable age-reporting strategy varied if the sample was evaluated as a whole, by age, or by sex. While none of the age-reporting strategies evaluated in this study were consistently the most accurate and reliable for all of the sample categories, the experience-based approach performed well for each group.","PeriodicalId":45852,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Sciences Research","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Age-at-Death Estimation: Accuracy and Reliability of Common Age-Reporting Strategies in Forensic Anthropology\",\"authors\":\"Christine Bailey, Giovanna M. Vidoli\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/forensicsci3010014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Forensic anthropologists build a biological profile—consisting of sex, age, population affinity, and stature estimates—to assist medicolegal stakeholders in the identification of unknown human skeletal remains. While adult age-at-death estimations can narrow the pool of potential individuals, a lack of standards, best practices, and consensus among anthropologists for method selection and the production of a final age estimate present significant challenges. The purpose of this research is to identify age-reporting strategies that provide the most accurate and reliable (i.e., low inaccuracy and low bias) adult age-at-death estimates when evaluated considering the total sample, age cohort (20–39; 40–59; 60–79), and sex. Age-reporting strategies in this study were derived from six age-at-death estimation methods and tested on 58 adult individuals (31 males, 27 females) from the UTK Donated Skeletal Collection. An experienced-based estimation strategy was also assessed. A paired-samples t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimated age and the actual age for all age-reporting strategies. Results show that the most accurate and reliable age-reporting strategy varied if the sample was evaluated as a whole, by age, or by sex. While none of the age-reporting strategies evaluated in this study were consistently the most accurate and reliable for all of the sample categories, the experience-based approach performed well for each group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Sciences Research\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Sciences Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci3010014\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Sciences Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci3010014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

法医人类学家建立了一个生物档案——包括性别、年龄、人口亲和力和身高估计——以帮助法医利益相关者识别未知的人类骨骼遗骸。虽然估计成人死亡年龄可以缩小潜在个体的范围,但人类学家在方法选择和最终年龄估计的产生方面缺乏标准、最佳实践和共识,这提出了重大挑战。本研究的目的是确定年龄报告策略,提供最准确和可靠(即低不准确性和低偏差)的成人死亡年龄估计值,考虑到总样本,年龄队列(20-39岁;40岁至59岁;60-79),以及性。本研究中的年龄报告策略来源于六种死亡年龄估计方法,并对来自UTK捐赠骨骼收藏的58名成年人(31名男性,27名女性)进行了测试。还评估了基于经验的评估策略。采用配对样本t检验确定所有年龄报告策略的平均估计年龄与实际年龄之间是否存在显著差异(p≤0.05)。结果表明,最准确、最可靠的年龄报告策略在样本整体、年龄或性别评估时有所不同。虽然在这项研究中评估的年龄报告策略中,没有一种对所有样本类别都是最准确和可靠的,但基于经验的方法在每一组中都表现良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Age-at-Death Estimation: Accuracy and Reliability of Common Age-Reporting Strategies in Forensic Anthropology
Forensic anthropologists build a biological profile—consisting of sex, age, population affinity, and stature estimates—to assist medicolegal stakeholders in the identification of unknown human skeletal remains. While adult age-at-death estimations can narrow the pool of potential individuals, a lack of standards, best practices, and consensus among anthropologists for method selection and the production of a final age estimate present significant challenges. The purpose of this research is to identify age-reporting strategies that provide the most accurate and reliable (i.e., low inaccuracy and low bias) adult age-at-death estimates when evaluated considering the total sample, age cohort (20–39; 40–59; 60–79), and sex. Age-reporting strategies in this study were derived from six age-at-death estimation methods and tested on 58 adult individuals (31 males, 27 females) from the UTK Donated Skeletal Collection. An experienced-based estimation strategy was also assessed. A paired-samples t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimated age and the actual age for all age-reporting strategies. Results show that the most accurate and reliable age-reporting strategy varied if the sample was evaluated as a whole, by age, or by sex. While none of the age-reporting strategies evaluated in this study were consistently the most accurate and reliable for all of the sample categories, the experience-based approach performed well for each group.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic Sciences Research
Forensic Sciences Research MEDICINE, LEGAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
158
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Forensic efficiency and population genetic construction of Guizhou Gelao minority from Southwest China revealed by a panel of 23 autosomal STR loci. Correction to: Metric analysis of the patella for sex estimation in a Portuguese sample. Correction to: Forensic features and phylogenetic structure survey of four populations from southwest China via the autosomal insertion/deletion markers. Correction to: Potential role of the sella turcica X-ray imaging aspects for sex estimation in the field of forensic anthropology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Forensic identification in a multidisciplinary perspective focusing on big challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1