Variation of musculoskeletal stress markers in the medieval population from Cedynia (Poland)--proposal of standardized scoring method application.

Abstract

The objective of this paper is: (a) to present a rating scale for the evaluation of the musculoskeletal stress markers; (b) to analyze the medieval population from Cedynia in terms of the degree of expression and frequency of the musculoskeletal stress markers. The presented rating scale was developed based on the variability of the morphology of muscle attachment sites, observed in the skeletal material from Cedynia (102 males and 99 females). The scale encompasses 10 musculoskeletal stress markers located on the scapula, humerus, radius, femur and tibia. The system reflects three degrees (1, 2, 3) of complexity of the muscle attachment sites morphology. The analysis of asymmetry and sexual dimorphism of the musculoskeletal stress markers was made based on the chi2 (Pearson) statistics or chi2 statistics for 2 x 2 tables. Moderate degree (2) of muscle attachment site complexity is the most frequent degree of musculoskeletal stress markers development in the population from Cedynia. Low (1) and high (3) complexity of muscle attachment site are the most seldom observed categories. No statistically significant differences between the frequencies of the musculoskeletal stress markers on the bones of the right and left side of the skeleton were noted in females. Also in males the differences found were not statistically significant. Only in the case of deltoid tuberosity (H2) p = 0.052 oscillating around the threshold value may suggest existence of a statistically significant difference in the degree of expression of this stress marker on the bone of the right and left side of the skeleton. On the bones of the right side of the skeleton dimorphic differences were observed in the glenoid tuberosity (S2), bicipital groove (H1), pronator teres origin (R2), tibial tuberosity (T1), soleal crest (T2) and linea aspera (F2). On the bones of the left side of the skeleton dimorphic differences were noted for the bicipital groove (H1), pronator teres origin (R2) and glenoid tuberosity (S2).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.