Body mass estimation in modern population using anthropometric measurements from computed tomography

Lorkiewicz-Muszyńska, Dorota; Przystańska, Agnieszka; Kociemba, Wojciech; Sroka, Alicja; Rewekant, Artur; Żaba, Czesław; Paprzycki, W

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.05.017

Cited by 34 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, if we eliminate the projected adult size values for the juvenile KNM-WT 15000 and the hugely discordant estimates for KNM-ER 1808, and then apply our [7] univariate regression of mass on femoral head size to their FHD database, the differences in estimates among the remaining 13 specimens diminish greatly to an average of þ3.3 kg. Choice of training sample obviously has a huge impact on regression formulae and body mass estimates (also see [53,54]). …”

Section: Synopsis Of Body Size Evolution In the Human Careermentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of body size and shape in the human career

Jungers

Grabowski

Hatala

et al. 2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 17 to a discussion meeting issue 'Major transitions in human evolution'. Body size is a fundamental biological property of organisms, and documenting body size variation in hominin evolution is an important goal of palaeoanthropology. Estimating body mass appears deceptively simple but is laden with theoretical and pragmatic assumptions about best predictors and the most appropriate reference samples. Modern human training samples with known masses are arguably the 'best' for estimating size in early bipedal hominins such as the australopiths and all members of the genus Homo, but it is not clear if they are the most appropriate priors for reconstructing the size of the earliest putative hominins such as Orrorin and Ardipithecus. The trajectory of body size evolution in the early part of the human career is reviewed here and found to be complex and nonlinear. Australopith body size varies enormously across both space and time. The pre-erectus early Homo fossil record from Africa is poor and dominated by relatively small-bodied individuals, implying that the emergence of the genus Homo is probably not linked to an increase in body size or unprecedented increases in size variation. Body size differences alone cannot explain the observed variation in hominin body shape, especially when examined in the context of small fossil hominins and pygmy modern humans.This article is part of the themed issue 'Major transitions in human evolution'.

show abstract

Section: Synopsis Of Body Size Evolution In the Human Careermentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolution of body size and shape in the human career

Jungers

Grabowski

Hatala

et al. 2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Estimating TBM in modern populations is further complicated by body composition that departs from healthy norms (in relation to ST) such as seen in underweight, overweight, and obese individuals. Recently, Lorkiewicz‐Muszyńska et al observed that TBM estimation using the ST‐BIB method among modern individuals within the range of normal (i.e., healthy) body mass index (BMI, kg/m 2 ) using World Health Organization (WHO) standards (BMI = 18.5–24.9) was accurate, whereas TBM estimation using individuals with BMI extremes (18.5 > BMI > 24.9), indices indicating underweight and overweight/obese, was inaccurate. Therefore, TBM estimation using the ST‐BIB method in modern populations must include controls for extreme BMIs or essential and excess body fat.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Total Body Mass Estimation from Anthropometric Measurements in Modern Young Adult U.S. Populations with Healthy Body Fat Percentages (NHANES III)

Schaffer

2016

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a method by which to estimate total body mass in modern young adult U.S. populations who self-identified as non-Hispanic U.S. White, non-Hispanic U.S. Black, and Mexican American with anthropometric measurements from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) 1988-1994 dataset (N = 2532). Correlations of stature and bi-iliac breadth with total body mass were stronger among males (r = 0.717-0.774) than among females (r = 0.549-0.661), yet these results were more accurate assessments of total body mass than existing techniques. This study also examined additional anthropometric measurements to estimate total body mass using an information-theoretic approach demonstrating that some error in the stature-bi-iliac breadth method is attributed to a nonsupported model with multimodel inference. The limitations of the current total body mass technique are discussed as well as the need for future studies to validate the method.

show abstract

“…Greater uncertainty in the different approaches is suggested by a recent study (Lorkiewicz-Muszy nska et al, 2013), which used anthropometric measurements from computed tomography to compare three different methods for estimating body mass from femoral head size (Ruff et al, 1991;McHenry, 1992;Grine et al, 1995) and the stature/bi-iliac method discussed above (Ruff, 1994;Ruff et al, 2005). This includes the calculation methods for the most frequently used body mass estimates for Neandertals and also for australopithecines and early Homo (Leonard and Robertson, 1997;Aiello and Key, 2002;Aiello and Wells, 2002;SteudelNumbers, 2006;Holliday, 2012;Pontzer, 2012).…”

Section: Uncertainties In Bm Estimation and Implications For Energetimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are also grateful to Dorota Lorkiewicz-Muszy nska, Agnieszka Przysta nska, Wojciech Kociemba, Alicja Sroka, and Artur Rewekant from the Pozna n University of Medical Sciences, Poland, for permission to use unpublished SEE values from their analysis of body mass estimation using computed tomography data from a modern population (Lorkiewicz-Muszy nska et al, 2013).…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%