Sexual dimorphism of the mandible in a contemporary Chinese Han population

Estimating sex using discriminant analysis of mandibular measurements from a modern Greek sample

“…Despite most of their reported DFs were based on different set of measurements than these utilized in the present study, which restricted a direct comparison with their most accurate DFs in terms of correct sex classification, the available comparisons showed similar classification score for Function 7 (77.2% on Greek sample; 80.8% on Korean sample) and identical accuracy for Function 8 (80.4%). Similarly, the DF reported by Dong and colleagues based on a contemporary Han Chinese population sample yielded 83.3% classification accuracy (Dong et al 2015), whereas the corresponding DF from the Greek sample produced 82.7% and 84.9% cross-validated classification scores for the left-and right-side measurements, respectively.…”

“…In order to investigate whether and to what extent the mandible-based sex discriminant functions (DFs) are population specific, previously published DFs (from different population samples) were produced from the Greek population sample for comparing their crossvalidated classification accuracy with that reported on the original population samples. More specifically, the combination of measurements of one DF from a South African Whites population sample (Steyn and İşcan 1998), three DFs from a South African Blacks population sample (Franklin et al 2008), two DFs from an Indian population sample (Saini et al 2011), two DFs from a Korean population sample (Lin et al 2014), and one DF from a contemporary Han Chinese population sample (Dong et al 2015) were used for this comparison. Additionally, the classification accuracy of the previously reported DFs was also tested on the Greek sample as a measure of how their sex discriminant capacity changes when applied on a different sample than the reference population.…”

“…The lowest correct classification accuracy was exhibited by Function 1, which correctly classified 63.79% and 68.11% of the Greek sample, when using the leftand the right-side measurements, respectively. Finally, it should be noted that the DF reported by Dong et al (2015) could not be applied on our sample, since they omitted to report the DF's constant value in their paper.…”

“…Various sex discriminating morphological and morphometric traits of the mandible have been described in the literature, such as the "mandibular ramus flexure" or the "ramus length," respectively (Hu et al 2006;Dong et al 2015;Sharma et al 2016). However, morphometric analyses, as opposed to qualitative sex discriminant methods, are more commonly used due to its inherent objectivity, accuracy, reproducibility, and lower level of inter-and intra-observer errors (Saini et al 2011;Carvalho et al 2013;Sharma et al 2016).…”

“…Hence, it is commonly used in forensic applications for developing sex discriminant functions (Franklin et al 2005;Dayal et al 2008;Ogawa et al 2013). Over the years, numerous sex discriminant functions based on mandibular measurements have been reported for various populations (Giles 1964;Steyn and İşcan 1998;Franklin et al 2008;Saini et al 2011;Lin et al 2014;Dong et al 2015). Nevertheless, the subtlety of metric assessments renders any derived sex discriminant function highly population specific as well as sensitive to secular trends (Dayal et al 2008).…”