Suppr超能文献

法医人类学中骨骼测量数据的误差量化

Error quantification of osteometric data in forensic anthropology.

作者信息

Langley Natalie R, Meadows Jantz Lee, McNulty Shauna, Maijanen Heli, Ousley Stephen D, Jantz Richard L

机构信息

Department of Anatomy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine Arizona Campus, 13400 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA.

Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, 502 Strong Hall, 1621 Cumberland Ave., Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.

出版信息

Forensic Sci Int. 2018 Jun;287:183-189. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.004. Epub 2018 Apr 10.

Abstract

This study evaluates the reliability of osteometric data commonly used in forensic case analyses, with specific reference to the measurements in Data Collection Procedures 2.0 (DCP 2.0). Four observers took a set of 99 measurements four times on a sample of 50 skeletons (each measurement was taken 200 times by each observer). Two-way mixed ANOVAs and repeated measures ANOVAs with pairwise comparisons were used to examine interobserver (between-subjects) and intraobserver (within-subjects) variability. Relative technical error of measurement (TEM) was calculated for measurements with significant ANOVA results to examine the error among a single observer repeating a measurement multiple times (e.g. repeatability or intraobserver error), as well as the variability between multiple observers (interobserver error). Two general trends emerged from these analyses: (1) maximum lengths and breadths have the lowest error across the board (TEM<0.5), and (2) maximum and minimum diameters at midshaft are more reliable than their positionally-dependent counterparts (i.e. sagittal, vertical, transverse, dorso-volar). Therefore, maxima and minima are specified for all midshaft measurements in DCP 2.0. Twenty-two measurements were flagged for excessive variability (either interobserver, intraobserver, or both); 15 of these measurements were part of the standard set of measurements in Data Collection Procedures for Forensic Skeletal Material, 3rd edition. Each measurement was examined carefully to determine the likely source of the error (e.g. data input, instrumentation, observer's method, or measurement definition). For several measurements (e.g. anterior sacral breadth, distal epiphyseal breadth of the tibia) only one observer differed significantly from the remaining observers, indicating a likely problem with the measurement definition as interpreted by that observer; these definitions were clarified in DCP 2.0 to eliminate this confusion. Other measurements were taken from landmarks that are difficult to locate consistently (e.g. pubis length, ischium length); these measurements were omitted from DCP 2.0. This manual is available for free download online (https://fac.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DCP20_webversion.pdf), along with an accompanying instructional video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkLFl3vim4).

摘要

本研究评估了法医案件分析中常用的骨骼测量数据的可靠性,特别参考了数据收集程序2.0(DCP 2.0)中的测量方法。四位观察者对50具骨骼样本进行了一组99项测量,每人测量四次(每位观察者对每项测量重复进行200次)。使用双向混合方差分析和带有成对比较的重复测量方差分析来检验观察者间(受试者间)和观察者内(受试者内)的变异性。对具有显著方差分析结果的测量计算相对测量技术误差(TEM),以检验单个观察者多次重复测量时的误差(例如重复性或观察者内误差),以及多个观察者之间的变异性(观察者间误差)。这些分析得出了两个总体趋势:(1)最大长度和宽度的误差总体最低(TEM<0.5),(2)骨干中部的最大和最小直径比其位置相关的对应直径(即矢状、垂直、横向、背腹向)更可靠。因此,DCP 2.0中对所有骨干中部测量都规定了最大值和最小值。有22项测量被标记为变异性过大(包括观察者间、观察者内或两者皆有);其中15项测量是《法医骨骼材料数据收集程序》第三版标准测量集的一部分。对每项测量都进行了仔细检查,以确定误差的可能来源(例如数据输入、仪器、观察者方法或测量定义)。对于几项测量(例如骶骨前宽度、胫骨远端骨骺宽度),只有一位观察者与其他观察者有显著差异,这表明该观察者对测量定义的理解可能存在问题;DCP 2.0中对这些定义进行了澄清,以消除这种混淆。其他测量取自难以一致定位的标志点(例如耻骨长度、坐骨长度);这些测量在DCP 2.0中被省略。本手册可在网上免费下载(https://fac.utk.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DCP20_webversion.pdf),同时还有一个配套的教学视频(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkLFl3vim4)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验