Which measures of diaphyseal robusticity are robust? A comparison of external methods of quantifying the strength of long bone diaphyses to cross‐sectional geometric properties

Abstract

Measures of diaphyseal robusticity have commonly been used to investigate differences in bone strength related to body size, behavior, climate, and other factors. The most common methods of quantifying robusticity involve external diameters, or cross-sectional geometry. The data derived from these different methods are often used to address similar research questions, yet the compatibility of the resulting data has not been thoroughly tested. This study provides the first systematic comparison of externally derived measures of postcranial robusticity, with those based upon cross-sectional geometry. It includes sections taken throughout the skeleton, comparisons of prediction errors associated with different measurements, and analysis of the implications of different methods of body size standardization on the prediction of relative bone strength. While the results show reasonable correlations between diaphyseal diameters and strengths derived from cross-sectional geometry, considerable prediction errors are found in many cases. A new approach to externally based quantification of diaphyseal robusticity based upon moulding of sub-periosteal contours is proposed. This method maximizes correlation with cross-sectional geometry (r(2) = .998) and minimizes prediction errors in all cases. The results underscore the importance of accurate periosteal measurement in the quantification of bone strength, and suggest that, regardless of theoretical scaling predictions, external area based robusticity estimates involving the product of diaphyseal diameters are most directly comparable to cross-sectional geometric properties when they are standardized using the product of body mass and bone length.

Insights on the paleoepidemiology of ancient tuberculosis from the structural analysis of postcranial remains from the Ligurian Neolithic (northwestern Italy)

“…The concomitant effect of altered metabolism and activity pattern in AC5 during a crucial time for bone development is expected to result in extremely low 'robusticity' (bone mechanical rigidity scaled by body size: Ruff et al, 2006) of long bones (humerus, femur, and tibia) when compared to the rest of the Neolithic sample. A decrease in mechanical competence will be particularly influenced by a deficit in subperiosteal apposition, since the total area is the main determinant of bone rigidity (Stock and Shaw, 2007). As AQ1 is fully adult, long-term metabolic disturbances and inactivity are expected to result in an enlargement of the medullary cavity and decreased percent cortical area (Eser et al, 2004).…”

Assessing size and strength of the clavicle for its usefulness for sex estimation in a British medieval sample

“…In addition, the non-destructive method of latex cast moulds, combined with bi-planar radiographs was used to reconstruct cross-sectional geometry at mid-shaft . As discussed by Stock and Shaw (2007) this method is the most robust way in which to examine the cross sectional measurements of J and Imax/Imin. Latex cast moulds of the clavicular cross-section were taken around the circumference of the midpoint.…”

Septal aperture aetiology: still more questions than answers

“…Bone robusticity refers to the strength of the bone in terms of its shape and size [42]. It has been known that bones adapt their structure to mechanical loading, and increased mechanical forces lead to greater bone robusticity [21].…”