Testing the accuracy of adult skeletal age estimation methods: original methods versus revised and newer methods.

Abstract

Accurately estimating adult skeletal age at death is a critical component of forensic case studies, archaeological fieldwork, and osteological research. This study applies 11 age estimation methods to a sample of 20 male skeletons of European descent (mean age 54.5 years, range 29-85) from the J.C.B. Grant Collection at the University of Toronto to assess the relative correctness (appropriate assignment to defined phases), reliability (inaccuracy and bias of estimations), and precision (reproducibility) of each method. Five original methods (Kunos et al., first rib; Iscan et al., fourth rib; Lovejoy et al., auricular surface; Todd, pubic symphysis; and Suchey-Brooks, pubic symphysis) were compared with six revised or newly developed methods (DiGangi et al., first rib; Hartnett, fourth rib; Passalacqua, sacrum; Buckberry and Chamberlain, auricular surface; Rouge-Maillart et al., acetabulum and auricular surface; and Hartnett, pubic symphysis). Results indicate that the newer methods correctly score individuals more consistently than the older methods; however, this may be attributed to the larger age ranges of their phases. The newer methods are also more reliable than the older methods: Buckberry and Chamberlain (6.54 inaccuracy, 2.24 bias) and Passalacqua (8.07 inaccuracy, -1.28 bias) rated highest. Newer methods had slightly lower rates of intra-observer error; newer and original methods had similar fair-to-moderate rates of inter-observer error. While newer methods may represent improvements to the field, they follow the trend of over-aging younger individuals and under-aging older individuals.

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 — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.