↓ Skip to main content

Geometric morphometric and traditional methods for sex assessment using the posterior ilium

Overview of attention for article published in Legal Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Geometric morphometric and traditional methods for sex assessment using the posterior ilium
Published in
Legal Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.legalmed.2017.03.004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebeka Rmoutilová, Ján Dupej, Jana Velemínská, Jaroslav Brůžek

Abstract

The human hip bone is generally accepted as the most reliable bone for sex estimation in forensic and bioarchaeological disciplines. However, it is seldom completely preserved. The best preserved region is typically around the sacroiliac joint and its auricular surface; it is therefore surprising that this surface has not been involved in standard sexing methods. The aim of this study was to explore the shape and size sexual dimorphism of the auricular surface in detail and to compare its sex estimation accuracy using the geometric morphometric (GM) and traditional methodological approach. Our sample consisted of 121 specimens from 3 European osteological collections. The GM part of the study was based on 2D sliding semilandmarks that covered the outline of the auricular surface. Furthermore, several linear measurements and visual features (e.g. auricular surface elevation, postauricular sulcus) were chosen to test sex estimation accuracy using support vector machines. Concerning the GM analysis, the most notable sexual differences in the auricular surface outline relate to size. The best accuracy was achieved using form variables reaching 81.0%. Comparable accuracy (80.2%) was achieved using the metric approach, but combined with visual features the accuracy was increased to 93.4%. The GM approach was not very efficient in sexing the auricular surface outline, but the combination of visual features from the posterior ilium and metric variables of the auricular surface could be useful in sex estimation. Therefore, we provide a further testable linear discriminant equation based on this combination of variables.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Social Sciences 6 17%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#11,595,179
of 15,184,210 outputs
Outputs from Legal Medicine
#229
of 346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,979
of 264,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Legal Medicine
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,184,210 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 346 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.