|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|101722||161290||2016||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• The effects of sampling area for age estimation using ribs are explored.
• Any segment of the rib could be used without considerable increase in error.
• A systemic underestimation of all individuals but the youngest specimen is observed.
• A population specific formula is required and a bigger sample needed to verify these preliminary results.
Most age estimation methods are proven problematic when applied in highly fragmented skeletal remains. Rib histomorphometry is advantageous in such cases; yet it is vital to test and revise existing techniques particularly when used in legal settings (Crowder and Rosella, 2007). This study tested Stout & Paine (1992) and Stout et al. (1994) histological age estimation methods on a Modern Greek sample using different sampling sites.Six left 4th ribs of known age and sex were selected from a modern skeletal collection. Each rib was cut into three equal segments. Two thin sections were acquired from each segment. A total of 36 thin sections were prepared and analysed. Four variables (cortical area, intact and fragmented osteon density and osteon population density) were calculated for each section and age was estimated according to Stout & Paine (1992) and Stout et al. (1994).The results showed that both methods produced a systemic underestimation of the individuals (to a maximum of 43 years) although a general improvement in accuracy levels was observed when applying the Stout et al. (1994) formula. There is an increase of error rates with increasing age with the oldest individual showing extreme differences between real age and estimated age.Comparison of the different sampling sites showed small differences between the estimated ages suggesting that any fragment of the rib could be used without introducing significant error. Yet, a larger sample should be used to confirm these results.
Journal: Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine - Volume 38, February 2016, Pages 28–35