A Method for Estimating Sex Using the Clavicle, Humerus, Radius, and Ulna

Abstract

Sex estimation from skeletal remains can be an important part of preliminary identification. The best source of information for estimating sex is the pelvis but it is not always available for analysis. For these cases, a probabilistic sex estimation method is presented using combinations of standard and alternative measurements of the clavicle, humerus, radius, and ulna. Various equations are developed that are not population specific and that are applicable in various recovery scenarios. The equations were tested using four independent samples (n > 370), including a forensic sample. Allocation accuracies vary by test sample and equation and are consistently good (87.4-97.5%) except for a sample of very small males that show the extreme effects of poverty and mortality bias. For many of the cases where allocation was incorrect, the probabilistic approach indicated that no confidence should be placed in the incorrect allocation and the unknown should be classified as sex indeterminate.

An Analysis of Hounsfield Unit Values and Volumetrics from Computerized Tomography of the Proximal Femur for Sex and Age Estimation

“…The proposed method for sex estimation is comparable to other metric methods that have an accuracy range of 87.4–98.5% in which all utilize a diverse range of body parts such as pelvis and hip , femur , humerus , and other postcranial elements . These rates of accuracy are higher than more visual, morphometric methods which had a range of high 70% and low 80% .…”

“…However, when the pelvis is not present, the skull is often considered the next most reliable bone (6). Other studies have suggested postcranial bones may be more effective (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22) in estimating sex. In general, once the sex of an unknown individual is estimated, one of the next steps is the approximation of their age.…”

Sex estimation of upper long bones by selected measurements in a Radom (Poland) population from the 18th and 19th centuries AD

“…Therefore, if the skeleton is reasonably complete and a reliable morphological diagnosis is possible, there is no need to apply molecular methods. In such cases, sex estimation can generally be detected by two different approaches: observation of morphological trials and/ or measurement of different bones (Asala et al 2004;Cowal and Pastor 2008;Robinson and Bidmos 2011;Spradley and Jantz 2011;Albanese 2013;Bašić et al 2013).…”

Accuracy and reliability of Southern European standards for the tibia: a test of two Mediterranean populations

“…Morphological and metric analysis for sex assessment have been used extensively on different skeletal elements [4][5][6][7][8] with the assumption that the metrical approach relies on a statistical foundation; the underlying quantitative analysis based on statistical principles has proven to be a reliable substitute for the more subjective traditional gross-examination [9]. However, as the degree of sexual dimorphism is not constant across populations, population specific metric standards are highly recommended [7,10,11].…”