2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.06.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Application and validation of Diagnose Sexuelle Probabiliste V2 tool in a miscegenated population

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
15
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
2
15
1
Order By: Relevance
“…SA was the only measure that did not present a statistically significant difference between the sexes (P = 0.0059), following the findings of Mestekova et al (2015). This result is also partially supported by Machado et al (2018), who did not find statistically significant differences between the sexes with measures SA and PUM.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 65%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…SA was the only measure that did not present a statistically significant difference between the sexes (P = 0.0059), following the findings of Mestekova et al (2015). This result is also partially supported by Machado et al (2018), who did not find statistically significant differences between the sexes with measures SA and PUM.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 65%
“…Only one error on sex classification was spotted among the entire sample (classified as female, and which was proven to be morphologically male), resulting in a low error rate (0.4%). The result was more satisfactory than the one found by Machado et al (2018), who had five (9.43%) pelvic bones misclassified as males and seven (14%) as females. The high precision rate in this study follows the ones presented by Murail et al (2005), who showed a precision between 98.7% to 99.63% and an error rate of <2%.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…The software, based on Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) was validated with a large sample of 623 individuals from United States and Switzerland and resulted in classifying up to 90% of the sample with over 95% probability of correct classification. The DSP method has been validated in other dry bones samples of known age and sex (for example in a Mexican [13], a Belgian [14], a French [15] and a Brasilian sample [16]. The DSP method has also been validated in 3D models of os coxae obtained from CT scans in living French population [17] and on 3D CT scans from modern Danish population [18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 which shows the large difference in DCOX between males and females). Machado and colleagues (Machado et al, 2018) further detailed that the inaccuracies in their results of sex estimation using DSP were largely related to DCOX values (i.e. males with lower DCOX values being miscorrectly diagnosed as females and vice versa).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The method has recently been validated and proven to be highly effective on European ancient and modern human populations (Chapman et al, 2014;Jerković et al, 2018;Mestekova et al, 2015;Quatrehomme et al, 2017). A recent study also analysed DSP on a Brazilian identified population (Machado et al, 2018) which was outside the reference population. DSP was 100% effective in known sex European populations (Chapman et al, 2014;Mestekova et al, 2015;Quatrehomme et al, 2017), including an ancient population validated by aDNA analysis (Jerković et al, 2018) although the Brazilian population showed some misclassifications and only had a sex identification accuracy of 90.57% for males and 86% for females (although this varied according to which DSP variables were used).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%