Population affinity estimation using pelvic measurements based on computed tomographic data acquired from Japanese and Western Australian populations

Abstract

The present study analyzes morphological differences in the pelvis of Japanese and Western Australian individuals and investigates the feasibility of population affinity classification based on computed tomography (CT) data. The Japanese and Western Australian samples comprise CT scans of 207 (103 females; 104 males) and 158 (78 females; 80 males) adult individuals, respectively. Following volumetric reconstruction, a total of 19 pelvic landmarks were obtained on each sample, and 11 measurements, including two angles, were calculated. Machine learning methods (random forest modeling [RFM] and support vector machine [SVM]) were used to classify population affinity. Classification accuracy of the two-way models was approximately 80% for RFM: the two-way sex-specific and sex-mixed models for SVM achieved > 90% and > 85%, respectively. The sex-specific models had higher accurate classification rates than the sex-mixed models, except for the Japanese male sample. The classification accuracy of the four-way sex and population affinity model had an overall classification accuracy of 76.71% for RFM and 87.67% for SVM. All the correct classification rates were higher in the Japanese relative to the Western Australian sample. Our data suggest that pelvic morphology is sufficiently distinct between Japanese and Western Australian individuals to facilitate the accurate classification of population affinity based on measurements acquired in CT images. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the feasibility of population affinity estimation based on CT images of the pelvis, which appears as a viable supplement to traditional approaches based on cranio-facial morphology.

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 — 8 citations exist upstream.

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