Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 132, Issue 5, pp 1447–1455 | Cite as

A test and analysis of Calce (2012) method for skeletal age-at-death estimation using the acetabulum in a modern skeletal sample

  • David Navega
  • Maria Godinho
  • Eugénia Cunha
  • Maria Teresa Ferreira
Original Article

Abstract

In forensic anthropology, the age-at-death of an adult individual is one of the most complex parameters of the biological profile to estimate. The present study aims to evaluate the reliability of the Calce (2012) method for the estimation of age-at-death through acetabulum changes in a sample of Portuguese origin. This method consists of the global analysis of acetabular age-related morphology with focus on three specific traits, namely the acetabular groove, the osteophyte development of the acetabular rim, and the apex growth. This method was tested in 120 individuals sampled from the Twenty-first Century Identified Skeletal Collection (University of Coimbra, Portugal). The test sample is composed of 60 males and 60 females, aged between 25 and 99 years, with well-preserved os coxae. The results showed that only 60% of the individuals were correctly attributed to the age group defined by the technique. The comparison with previous studies in other populations shows significant inter-population differences in the relationship between the acetabulum variables used by Calce and age-at-death. The obtained results advise caution in the use of the Calce (2012) method to estimate the age-at-death of unidentified skeletons.

Keywords

Forensic anthropology Age-at-death estimation Portuguese population Acetabulum Calce’s method 

Notes

Funding information

The co-authors David Navega [SFRH/BD/99676/2014] and Maria Teresa Ferreira [SFRH/BPD/11710/2015] were financed by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Dirkmaat DC, Cabo LL, Ousley SD, Symes SA (2008) New perspectives in forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol 137:33–52.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Márquez-Grant N (2015) An overview of age estimation in forensic anthropology: perspectives and practical considerations. Ann Hum Biol 42:308–322.  https://doi.org/10.3109/03014460.2015.1048288 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buckberry J (2015) The (mis)use of adult age estimates in osteology. Ann Hum Biol 42:323–331.  https://doi.org/10.3109/03014460.2015.1046926 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rösing FW, Graw M, Marré B, Ritz-Timme S, Rothschild MA, Rötzscher K, Schmeling A, Schröder I, Geserick G (2007) Recommendations for the forensic diagnosis of sex and age from skeletons. Homo 58:75–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchb.2005.07.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mays S (2015) The effect of factors other than age upon skeletal age indicators in the adult. Ann Hum Biol 42:332–341.  https://doi.org/10.3109/03014460.2015.1044470 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ritz-Timme S, Cattaneo C, Collins MJ, Waite ER, Schütz HW, Kaatsch HJ, Borrman HIM (2000) Age estimation: the state of the art in relation to the specific demands of forensic practise. Int J Legal Med 113:129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004140050283 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cunha E, Baccino E, Martrille L, Ramsthaler F, Prieto J, Schuliar Y, Lynnerup N, Cattaneo C (2009) The problem of aging human remains and living individuals: a review. Forensic Sci Int 193:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.09.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franklin D (2010) Forensic age estimation in human skeletal remains: current concepts and future directions. Legal Med 12:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2009.09.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garvin HM, Passalacqua NV (2012) Current practices by forensic anthropologists in adult skeletal age estimation. J Forensic Sci 57:427–433.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01979.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rougé-Maillart C, Telmon N, Rissech C, Malgosa A, Rougé D (2004) The determination of male adult age at death by central and posterior coxal analysis: a preliminary study. J Forensic Sci 49:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1520/jfs2002056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rougé-Maillart C, Jousset N, Vielle B, Gaudin A, Telmon N (2007) Contribution of the study of acetabulum for the estimation of adult subjects. Forensic Sci Int 171:103–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.10.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rissech C, Estabrook GF, Cunha E, Malgosa A (2006) Using the acetabulum to estimate age at death of adult males. J Forensic Sci 51:213–229.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00060.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rissech C, Estabrook GF, Cunha E, Malgosa A (2007) Estimation of age-at-death for adult males using the acetabulum, applied to four Western European populations. J Forensic Sci 52:774–778.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00486.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rougé-Maillart C, Vielle B, Jousset N, Chappard D, Telmon N, Cunha E (2009) Development of a method to estimate skeletal age at death in adults using the acetabulum and the auricular surface on a Portuguese population. Forensic Sci Int 188:91–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.03.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venara A, Martrille L, Godin M, Kerdat C, Deguette C, Chapard D, Rouge-Maillart C (2013) Estimation of skeletal age at death in adults using the acetabulum and the auricular surface – an application on the Terry collection. Rev Méd Lég 4:189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medleg.2013.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calce SE, Rogers TL (2011) Evaluation of age estimation technique: testing traits of the acetabulum to estimate age at death in adult males. J Forensic Sci 56:302–311.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01700.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calce SE (2012) A new method to estimate adult age-at-death using the acetabulum. Am J Phys Anthropol 148:11–23.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mays S (2012) An investigation of age-related changes at the acetabulum in 18th-19th century ad adult skeletons from Christ Church Spitalfields, London. Am J Phys Anthropol 149:485–492.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mays S (2014) A test of a recently devised method of estimating skeletal age at death using features of the adult acetabulum. J Forensic Sci 59:184–187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12293 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferreira MT, Vicente R, Navega D et al (2014) A new forensic collection housed at the University of Coimbra, Portugal: the 21st century identified skeletal collection. Forensic Sci Int 245:202.e1–202.e5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J (1968) Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70:213–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bhapkar VP (1966) A note on the equivalence of two test criteria for hypotheses in categorical data. J Am Stat Assoc 61:228–235.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1966.10502021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bishop YM, Light RJ, Mosteller F (2007) Discrete multivariate analysis: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cover TM, Thomas JA (2005) Elements of information theory, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Powers D (2011) Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness & correlation. J Mach Learn Technol 2:37–63Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rissech C (2013) Letter to the editor: comments on “a new method to estimate adult age-at-death using the acetabulum” (Calce, 2012). Am J Phys Anthropol 151:331–332.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22265 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Calce SE (2013) Notes and comments: reply to Rissech’s letter. Am J Phys Anthropol 151:333–334.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22271 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Botha D, Pretorius S, Myburgh J, Steyn M (2016) Age estimation from the acetabulum in South African black males. Int J Legal Med 130:809–817.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-015-1299-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    San-Millán M, Rissech C, Turbón D (2017) New approach to age estimation of male and female adult skeletons based on the morphological characteristics of the acetabulum. Int J Legal Med 131:501–525.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1406-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Milner GR, Boldsen JL (2012) Transition analysis: a validation study with known-age modern American skeletons. Am J Phys Anthropol 148:98–110.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Navega D, Coelho J, d’Oliveira Cunha E, Curate F (2017) DXAGE: a new method for age at death estimation based on femoral bone mineral density and artificial neural networks. J Forensic Sci 63:497–503.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13582 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miranker M (2016) A comparison of different age estimation methods of the adult pelvis. J Forensic Sci 61:1173–1179.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13130 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology, Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life SciencesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Laboratório de Antropologia Forense, Departamento de Ciências da VidaUniversidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel SalazarUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations