Investigating the sex-related geometric variation of the human cranium
- 214 Downloads
Accurate sexing methods are of great importance in forensic anthropology since sex assessment is among the principal tasks when examining human skeletal remains. The present study explores a novel approach in assessing the most accurate metric traits of the human cranium for sex estimation based on 80 ectocranial landmarks from 176 modern individuals of known age and sex from the Athens Collection. The purpose of the study is to identify those distance and angle measurements that can be most effectively used in sex assessment. Three-dimensional landmark coordinates were digitized with a Microscribe 3DX and analyzed in GNU Octave. An iterative linear discriminant analysis of all possible combinations of landmarks was performed for each unique set of the 3160 distances and 246,480 angles. Cross-validated correct classification as well as multivariate DFA on top performing variables reported 13 craniometric distances with over 85% classification accuracy, 7 angles over 78%, as well as certain multivariate combinations yielding over 95%. Linear regression of these variables with the centroid size was used to assess their relation to the size of the cranium. In contrast to the use of generalized procrustes analysis (GPA) and principal component analysis (PCA), which constitute the common analytical work flow for such data, our method, although computational intensive, produced easily applicable discriminant functions of high accuracy, while at the same time explored the maximum of cranial variability.
KeywordsGeometric morphometrics Cranial metric traits Discriminant functions Greek population
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments, which not only improved the quality of the present paper but also helped us further explore certain aspects of our work resulting in improved classification results. The present study and the use of the Athens Collection have been approved by the Department of Animal and Human Physiology. Preliminary results of this study have been communicated (Oral Presentation) at the 3rd Iberian Symposium on Geometric Morphometrics in Girona, Spain. The present study did not receive any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Harrison DL (2014) An evaluation of the methods used in the estimation of sex. Dissertation, University College LondonGoogle Scholar
- 7.Oikonomopoulou E, Valakos E, Nikita E (2017) Population-specificity of sexual dimorphism in cranial and pelvic traits: evaluation of existing and proposal of new functions for sex assessment in a Greek assemblage. Int J Legal Med 131(6):1731–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-017-1655-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Gómez-Valdés JA, Quinto-Sánchez M, Menéndez Garmendia A, Veleminska J, Sánchez-Mejorada G, Bruzek J (2012) Comparison of methods to determine sex by evaluating the greater sciatic notch: visual, angular and geometric morphometrics. Forensic Sci Int 221(1–3):156.e1–156.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.04.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Chovalopoulou M-E, Valakos ED, Manolis SK (2016) Sex determination by three-dimensional geometric morphometrics of the vault and midsagittal curve of the neurocranium in a modern Greek population sample. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology 67(3):173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchb.2015.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Chovalopoulou M-E, Bertsatos A, Manolis SK (2017) Landmark based sex discrimination on the crania of archaeological Greek populations. A comparative study based on the cranial sexual dimorphism of a modern Greek population. Journal of Mediterranean archaeology and. Archaeometry 17(1):37–49. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.258084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.White TD, Black MT, Folkens PA (2012) Human Osteology. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 24.Bookstein FL (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 25.Eaton JW, Bateman D, Hauberg S, Wehbring R (2015) GNU octave version 4.0.0 manual: a high-level interactive language for numerical computations. http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/ accessed 20 august 2017
- 26.Lewis SJ (1999) Quantifying measurement error. In: Anderson S (ed) Current and recent research in osteoarchaeology 2: proceedings of the 4th, 5th and 6th meetings of the Osteoarchaeological research group. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 54–55Google Scholar
- 27.Coxeter HSM, Greitzer SL (1967) Geometry revisited. The mathematical Association of America. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 29.Marinescu M, Panaitescu V, Rosu M, Maru N, Punga A (2014) Sexual dimorphism of crania in a Romanian population: discriminant function analysis approach for sex estimation. Romanian. J Legal Med 22(1). https://doi.org/10.4323/rjlm.2014.21
- 31.Fortes de Oliveira O, Lima Ribeiro Tinoco R, Daruge Junior E, Sayuri A, Terada SD, Henrique R, da Silva A, Paranhos LR (2012) Sexual dimorphism in Brazilian human skulls: discriminant function analysis. Journal of Forensic Odontostomatology 30(2):26–33Google Scholar
- 37.Tanaka T, Hanihara K, Koizumi K (1979) Sex determination of the modern Japanese skull by means of discriminant function. Sapporo medical. Journal 48:582–593Google Scholar