Sex discrimination from the glenoid cavity in black South Africans: morphometric analysis of digital photographs.
Given that skeletal material recovered from medicolegal contexts is often incomplete or damaged, forensic anthropologists need to have a variety of techniques at their disposal in order to correctly determine the sex of unidentified human remains. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to produce practical standards for discriminating the sex of black South Africans using measurements of the glenoid cavity of the scapula. Standardized digital photographs of the left glenoid fossa were taken for 60 males and 60 females drawn from the Pretoria Bone Collection. An image analysis software program was then used to collect height, breadth, area, and perimeter data from each digital photograph. All four dimensions of the glenoid cavity were highly sexually dimorphic in this population group (p < 0.0001). Univariate logistic regression analysis yielded overall sex prediction success rates ranging from 88.3% for area of the glenoid fossa to 85.8% for glenoid fossa breadth. Multivariate procedures did not provide increased accuracy over those using only a single variable. Classification sex biases were below 5.0% for all equations. These results demonstrate that the analysis of glenoid cavity size provides a highly accurate method for discriminating the sex of black South Africans.
Macaluso
P James
PJ
Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University (SUNY), Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, USA. p.james.macaluso@hotmail.com
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D044383:Black People; D005260:Female; D018732:Forensic Anthropology; D061165:Glenoid Cavity / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010781:Photography; D012727:Sex Characteristics; D054881:Sex Determination by Skeleton; D013019:South Africa; D055815:Young Adult
J Forensic Sci. 2006 Sep;51(5):979-84
17018072
Coll Antropol. 2006 Jun;30(2):415-9
16848161
J Anat. 1995 Feb;186 ( Pt 1):223-6
7649816
J Forensic Sci. 2008 Nov;53(6):1283-8
18717754
Forensic Sci Int. 2008 Jul 18;179(1):85.e1-7
18511225
Forensic Sci Int. 2004 Oct 4;145(1):25-9
15374591
Forensic Sci Int. 2002 Feb 18;125(2-3):134-6
11909654
Forensic Sci Int. 2001 Mar 1;117(1-2):15-22
11230942
J Forensic Sci. 2004 May;49(3):446-50
15171157
J Forensic Sci. 2005 Nov;50(6):1294-7
16382821
Homo. 2005;55(3):213-28
15803767
J Forensic Sci. 2009 May;54(3):529-30
19368625
J Forensic Sci. 2005 Jul;50(4):785-90
16078478
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2002 Sep;23(3):284-8
12198359
Int J Legal Med. 2011 Mar;125(2):199-204
20107826
Forensic Sci Int. 2005 Jan 29;147(2-3):119-27
15567615
J Forensic Sci. 2004 Nov;49(6):1165-70
15568686
Forensic Sci Int. 2009 Nov 20;192(1-3):127.e1-6
19733989
Forensic Sci Int. 2008 Aug 25;180(1):58.e1-3
18692971
Forensic Sci Int. 2008 Jul 18;179(1):84.e1-5
18467049
Forensic Sci Int. 2010 Jun 15;199(1-3):110.e1-9
20338703
J Forensic Sci. 2009 Mar;54(2):249-54
19207288
Forensic Sci Int. 1999 Dec 6;106(2):77-85
10664893
Homo. 2008;59(3):209-21
18439606
J Forensic Sci. 2010 Jan;55(1):149-52
20002272
Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper. 1994 Dec;70(12):299-305
7748529
Homo. 2005;56(2):197-205
16130841
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 May;136(1):39-50
18324631