Sara Tangmose Larsen1, Sara Arge1, Niels Lynnerup2. 1. a University of Copenhagen, Forensic Medicine, Frederik V Vej 11 , Copenhagen , Denmark and. 2. b Institute of Forensic Medicine , Copenhagen , Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The resulting statement of forensic age estimations in the living is of great consequence for the examinees in question. Concerns have been raised about the nature of these examinations, e.g. the potentially harmful radiographic exposures, as well as the accuracy of the estimated age. AIM: This manuscript investigates the reported age estimates performed at the Section of Forensic Pathology, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Copenhagen, in 2012. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The results of the individual assessments, i.e. the physical examination, and the radiographic examinations of bone age and dental age, were investigated as well as the correlation between the age estimates of the two latter examinations. RESULTS: In 139 out of the 174 statements, a conclusive chronological age estimate of at least 18 years was given. Although bone age was assessed within the dental age-range in a total of 152 out of 162 cases, some variations in the combined assessments were seen. CONCLUSION: The current procedure is not mathematically or statistically satisfactory. Instead, the most likely age including the variation and error of the age estimate should be reported in statements. The introduction of a Bayesian approach and the use of post-mortem-imaging-based databases may be used for this purpose.
BACKGROUND: The resulting statement of forensic age estimations in the living is of great consequence for the examinees in question. Concerns have been raised about the nature of these examinations, e.g. the potentially harmful radiographic exposures, as well as the accuracy of the estimated age. AIM: This manuscript investigates the reported age estimates performed at the Section of Forensic Pathology, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Copenhagen, in 2012. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The results of the individual assessments, i.e. the physical examination, and the radiographic examinations of bone age and dental age, were investigated as well as the correlation between the age estimates of the two latter examinations. RESULTS: In 139 out of the 174 statements, a conclusive chronological age estimate of at least 18 years was given. Although bone age was assessed within the dental age-range in a total of 152 out of 162 cases, some variations in the combined assessments were seen. CONCLUSION: The current procedure is not mathematically or statistically satisfactory. Instead, the most likely age including the variation and error of the age estimate should be reported in statements. The introduction of a Bayesian approach and the use of post-mortem-imaging-based databases may be used for this purpose.
Keywords:
Age estimation; dental age; radiography; wrist X-ray
Authors: M Hagen; S Schmidt; R Schulz; V Vieth; C Ottow; A Olze; H Pfeiffer; A Schmeling Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 2.686