Yangseung Jeong, Rebecca J Taylor, Yochun Jung, Eun Jin Woo
{"title":"在估计美国白人男性的身高方面,Trotter和Gleser(1958)的方程优于Trotter和Gleser(1952)的方程。","authors":"Yangseung Jeong, Rebecca J Taylor, Yochun Jung, Eun Jin Woo","doi":"10.1093/fsr/owad008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Trotter and Gleser presented two sets of stature estimation equations for the US White males in their 1952 and 1958 studies. Following Trotter's suggestion favouring the 1952 equations simply due to the smaller standard errors, the 1958 equations have been seldom used and have gone without additional systematic validation tests. This study aims to assess the performance of the Trotter and Gleser 1952, Trotter and Gleser 1958, and FORDISC equations for the White males in a quantitative and systematic way, particularly when applied to the WWII and Korean War casualties. In sum, 27 equations (7 from the 1952 study, 10 from the 1958 study, and 10 from FORDISC) were applied to the osteometric data of 240 accounted-for White male casualties of the WWII and Korean War. Then, the bias, accuracy, and Bayes factor for each set of stature estimates were calculated. The results show that, overall, Trotter and Gleser's 1958 equations outperform the 1952 and FORDISC equations in terms of all three measures. Particularly, the equations with higher Bayes factors produced stature estimates where distributions were closer to that of the reported statures than those with lower Bayes factors. When considering Bayes factors, the best performing equation was the \"Radius\" equation from the 1958 study (BF = 15.34) followed by the \"Humerus+Radius\" equation from FORDISC (BF = 14.42) and the \"Fibula\" equation from the 1958 study (BF = 13.82). The results of this study will provide researchers and practitioners applying the Trotter and Gleser stature estimation method with a practical guide for equation selection.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>The performance of three stature estimation methods was compared quantitatively.Trotter and Gleser's (1952, 1958) and FORDISC White male equations were included.Overall, Trotter and Gleser's 1958 method outperformed the other methods.This study provides a practical guide for stature estimation equation selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":45852,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Sciences Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"16-23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265954/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trotter and Gleser's (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser's (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males.\",\"authors\":\"Yangseung Jeong, Rebecca J Taylor, Yochun Jung, Eun Jin Woo\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fsr/owad008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Trotter and Gleser presented two sets of stature estimation equations for the US White males in their 1952 and 1958 studies. Following Trotter's suggestion favouring the 1952 equations simply due to the smaller standard errors, the 1958 equations have been seldom used and have gone without additional systematic validation tests. This study aims to assess the performance of the Trotter and Gleser 1952, Trotter and Gleser 1958, and FORDISC equations for the White males in a quantitative and systematic way, particularly when applied to the WWII and Korean War casualties. In sum, 27 equations (7 from the 1952 study, 10 from the 1958 study, and 10 from FORDISC) were applied to the osteometric data of 240 accounted-for White male casualties of the WWII and Korean War. Then, the bias, accuracy, and Bayes factor for each set of stature estimates were calculated. The results show that, overall, Trotter and Gleser's 1958 equations outperform the 1952 and FORDISC equations in terms of all three measures. Particularly, the equations with higher Bayes factors produced stature estimates where distributions were closer to that of the reported statures than those with lower Bayes factors. When considering Bayes factors, the best performing equation was the \\\"Radius\\\" equation from the 1958 study (BF = 15.34) followed by the \\\"Humerus+Radius\\\" equation from FORDISC (BF = 14.42) and the \\\"Fibula\\\" equation from the 1958 study (BF = 13.82). The results of this study will provide researchers and practitioners applying the Trotter and Gleser stature estimation method with a practical guide for equation selection.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>The performance of three stature estimation methods was compared quantitatively.Trotter and Gleser's (1952, 1958) and FORDISC White male equations were included.Overall, Trotter and Gleser's 1958 method outperformed the other methods.This study provides a practical guide for stature estimation equation selection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Sciences Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"16-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265954/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Sciences Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad008\",\"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/10.1093/fsr/owad008","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: 0
摘要
在1952年和1958年的研究中,Trotter和Gleser提出了两组美国白人男性的身高估计方程。根据Trotter的建议,1952年的方程仅仅是由于较小的标准误差,1958年的方程很少使用,并且没有额外的系统验证测试。本研究旨在以定量和系统的方式评估Trotter and Gleser 1952、Trotter and Gleser 1958以及白人男性的FORDISC方程的表现,特别是在应用于第二次世界大战和朝鲜战争伤亡时。总的来说,27个方程(7个来自1952年的研究,10个来自1958年的研究,10个来自FORDISC)被应用于240名二战和朝鲜战争中白人男性伤亡的骨测量数据。然后,计算每组身高估计值的偏差、精度和贝叶斯因子。结果表明,总体而言,Trotter和Gleser的1958方程在所有三个度量方面都优于1952和FORDISC方程。特别是,具有较高贝叶斯因子的方程产生的身高估计分布比具有较低贝叶斯因子的方程更接近报告的身高分布。在考虑贝叶斯因素时,表现最好的方程是1958年研究中的“桡骨”方程(BF = 15.34),其次是FORDISC研究中的“肱骨+桡骨”方程(BF = 14.42)和1958年研究中的“腓骨”方程(BF = 13.82)。本研究结果将为Trotter和Gleser身高估计方法的研究人员和实践者提供实用的公式选择指南。重点:对三种高度估计方法的性能进行了定量比较。包括Trotter和Gleser的(1952,1958)和FORDISC白人男性方程。总的来说,Trotter和Gleser 1958年的方法优于其他方法。该研究为身高估算方程的选择提供了实用的指导。
Trotter and Gleser's (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser's (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males.
Trotter and Gleser presented two sets of stature estimation equations for the US White males in their 1952 and 1958 studies. Following Trotter's suggestion favouring the 1952 equations simply due to the smaller standard errors, the 1958 equations have been seldom used and have gone without additional systematic validation tests. This study aims to assess the performance of the Trotter and Gleser 1952, Trotter and Gleser 1958, and FORDISC equations for the White males in a quantitative and systematic way, particularly when applied to the WWII and Korean War casualties. In sum, 27 equations (7 from the 1952 study, 10 from the 1958 study, and 10 from FORDISC) were applied to the osteometric data of 240 accounted-for White male casualties of the WWII and Korean War. Then, the bias, accuracy, and Bayes factor for each set of stature estimates were calculated. The results show that, overall, Trotter and Gleser's 1958 equations outperform the 1952 and FORDISC equations in terms of all three measures. Particularly, the equations with higher Bayes factors produced stature estimates where distributions were closer to that of the reported statures than those with lower Bayes factors. When considering Bayes factors, the best performing equation was the "Radius" equation from the 1958 study (BF = 15.34) followed by the "Humerus+Radius" equation from FORDISC (BF = 14.42) and the "Fibula" equation from the 1958 study (BF = 13.82). The results of this study will provide researchers and practitioners applying the Trotter and Gleser stature estimation method with a practical guide for equation selection.
Key points: The performance of three stature estimation methods was compared quantitatively.Trotter and Gleser's (1952, 1958) and FORDISC White male equations were included.Overall, Trotter and Gleser's 1958 method outperformed the other methods.This study provides a practical guide for stature estimation equation selection.