Literature DB >> 8333486

Test of the multifactorial aging method using skeletons with known ages-at-death from the Grant Collection.

M E Bedford1, K F Russell, C O Lovejoy, R S Meindl, S W Simpson, P L Stuart-Macadam.   

Abstract

The multifactorial aging method has been shown to be a highly reliable method of skeletal aging because it incorporates age information from as many age indicators as are available for each skeleton (Lovejoy et al.; Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 68:1-14, 1985). The present study was a blind test to assess its accuracy on a skeletal sample composed of 55 individuals with verified death certificates (Grant Collection, University of Toronto). Three authors (C.O.L., M.E.B., and K.F.R.), with no access to the death certificate ages, independently seriated and aged the sample using three to four criteria: auricular surface, pubic symphysis, and radiographs of the proximal femur and clavicle. Summary ages were then calculated for each individual in the sample. The authors' independent summary age estimates showed strong correlations with one another (r = 0.84-0.89). Multifactorial age estimates correlated better with real age than did those from any single indicator used. The mean error (averaging 8.7 years) for summary age was at least 1 year less than that for any single indicator. Average bias ranged from -0.7 (underage) to 1.4 (overage) years. These results indicate that utilization of several age indicators, weighted according to their reliability, helps control for variation in the changes that occur with age in any single morphological indicator. This method may therefore be considered one of the most accurate available for the determination of skeletal age-at-death, particularly for paleodemographic analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8333486     DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330910304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol        ISSN: 0002-9483            Impact factor:   2.868


  8 in total

1.  Assessing age-related ossification of the petro-occipital fissure: laying the foundation for understanding the clinicopathologies of the cranial base.

Authors:  Armand L Balboni; Thomas L Estenson; Joy S Reidenberg; Andrew D Bergemann; Jeffrey T Laitman
Journal:  Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol       Date:  2005-01

2.  A comparison of three established age estimation methods on an adult Spanish sample.

Authors:  Carme Rissech; Jeremy Wilson; Allysha Powanda Winburn; Daniel Turbón; Dawnie Steadman
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 2.686

3.  Advances in forensic age estimation.

Authors:  Richard B Bassed
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.007

4.  A minimum data set approach to post-mortem computed tomography reporting for anthropological biological profiling.

Authors:  Alison L Brough; Bruno Morgan; Claire Robinson; Sue Black; Craig Cunningham; Catherine Adams; Guy N Rutty
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 2.007

5.  New approach to age estimation of male and female adult skeletons based on the morphological characteristics of the acetabulum.

Authors:  Marta San-Millán; Carme Rissech; Daniel Turbón
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 2.686

6.  Demirjian's method in the estimation of age: A study on human third molars.

Authors:  Amitha J Lewis; Karen Boaz; K R Nagesh; N Srikant; Neha Gupta; K P Nandita; Nidhi Manaktala
Journal:  J Forensic Dent Sci       Date:  2015 May-Aug

7.  Cementum as an age determinant: A forensic view.

Authors:  Godishala Swamy Sugunakar Raju; Muddana Keerthi; Surapaneni Rateesh Kumar Nandan; Thokala Madhusudan Rao; Pavan G Kulkarni; Dorankula Shyam Prasad Reddy
Journal:  J Forensic Dent Sci       Date:  2016 Sep-Dec

Review 8.  Estimation of age in forensic anthropology: historical perspective and recent methodological advances.

Authors:  Douglas H Ubelaker; Haley Khosrowshahi
Journal:  Forensic Sci Res       Date:  2019-03-19
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.