{"title":"Age-at-Death Estimation: Accuracy and Reliability of Common Age-Reporting Strategies in Forensic Anthropology","authors":"Christine Bailey, Giovanna M. Vidoli","doi":"10.3390/forensicsci3010014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forensic anthropologists build a biological profile—consisting of sex, age, population affinity, and stature estimates—to assist medicolegal stakeholders in the identification of unknown human skeletal remains. While adult age-at-death estimations can narrow the pool of potential individuals, a lack of standards, best practices, and consensus among anthropologists for method selection and the production of a final age estimate present significant challenges. The purpose of this research is to identify age-reporting strategies that provide the most accurate and reliable (i.e., low inaccuracy and low bias) adult age-at-death estimates when evaluated considering the total sample, age cohort (20–39; 40–59; 60–79), and sex. Age-reporting strategies in this study were derived from six age-at-death estimation methods and tested on 58 adult individuals (31 males, 27 females) from the UTK Donated Skeletal Collection. An experienced-based estimation strategy was also assessed. A paired-samples t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimated age and the actual age for all age-reporting strategies. Results show that the most accurate and reliable age-reporting strategy varied if the sample was evaluated as a whole, by age, or by sex. While none of the age-reporting strategies evaluated in this study were consistently the most accurate and reliable for all of the sample categories, the experience-based approach performed well for each group.","PeriodicalId":45852,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Sciences Research","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Sciences Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci3010014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Forensic anthropologists build a biological profile—consisting of sex, age, population affinity, and stature estimates—to assist medicolegal stakeholders in the identification of unknown human skeletal remains. While adult age-at-death estimations can narrow the pool of potential individuals, a lack of standards, best practices, and consensus among anthropologists for method selection and the production of a final age estimate present significant challenges. The purpose of this research is to identify age-reporting strategies that provide the most accurate and reliable (i.e., low inaccuracy and low bias) adult age-at-death estimates when evaluated considering the total sample, age cohort (20–39; 40–59; 60–79), and sex. Age-reporting strategies in this study were derived from six age-at-death estimation methods and tested on 58 adult individuals (31 males, 27 females) from the UTK Donated Skeletal Collection. An experienced-based estimation strategy was also assessed. A paired-samples t-test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the mean estimated age and the actual age for all age-reporting strategies. Results show that the most accurate and reliable age-reporting strategy varied if the sample was evaluated as a whole, by age, or by sex. While none of the age-reporting strategies evaluated in this study were consistently the most accurate and reliable for all of the sample categories, the experience-based approach performed well for each group.