Concordance of traditional osteometric and volume-rendered MSCT interlandmark cranial measurements

Daniel Franklin, Andrea Cardini, Ambika Flavel, Algis Kuliukas, Murray Marks, Rob Hart, Charles Oxnard, Paul O'Higgins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The statistical quantification of error and uncertainty is inherently intertwined with ascertaining the admissibility of forensic evidence in a court of law. In the forensic anthropological discipline, the robustness of any given standard should not only be evaluated according to its stated error but by the accuracy and precision of the raw data (measurements) from which they are derived. In the absence of Australian contemporary documented skeletal collections, medical scans (e.g. multislice computed tomography-MSCT) offer a source of contemporary population-specific data for the formulation of skeletal standards. As the acquisition of morphometric data from clinical MSCT scans is still relatively novel, the purpose of this study is to assess validity of the raw data that is being used to formulate Australian forensic standards. Six human crania were subjected to clinical MSCT at a slice thickness of 0.9 mm. Each cranium and its corresponding volume-rendered three-dimensional MSCT image were measured multiple times. Whether differences between MSCT and dry bone interlandmark measurements are negligible is statistically quantified; intra- and inter-observer measurement error is also assessed. We found that traditional bone measurements are more precise than their MSCT counterparts, although overall differences between the two data acquisition methods are negligible compared to sample variance. Cranial variation accounted on average for more than 20× the variance explained by MSCT vs. bone measurements. Similarly, although differences between operators were sometimes significant compared to intra-operator variance, they were negligible when compared to sample variance, which was on average 12× larger than that due to inter-operator differences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)505-520
Number of pages16
JournalInternational Journal of Legal Medicine
Volume127
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2013

Fingerprint

Skull
Bone and Bones
Anthropology
Three-Dimensional Imaging
Multidetector Computed Tomography
Uncertainty
Population

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

Concordance of traditional osteometric and volume-rendered MSCT interlandmark cranial measurements. / Franklin, Daniel; Cardini, Andrea; Flavel, Ambika; Kuliukas, Algis; Marks, Murray; Hart, Rob; Oxnard, Charles; O'Higgins, Paul.

In: International Journal of Legal Medicine, Vol. 127, No. 2, 01.03.2013, p. 505-520.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Franklin, Daniel ; Cardini, Andrea ; Flavel, Ambika ; Kuliukas, Algis ; Marks, Murray ; Hart, Rob ; Oxnard, Charles ; O'Higgins, Paul. / Concordance of traditional osteometric and volume-rendered MSCT interlandmark cranial measurements. In: International Journal of Legal Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 127, No. 2. pp. 505-520.
@article{4e32e38b7dfe47469a52d33a09756e5c,
title = "Concordance of traditional osteometric and volume-rendered MSCT interlandmark cranial measurements",
abstract = "The statistical quantification of error and uncertainty is inherently intertwined with ascertaining the admissibility of forensic evidence in a court of law. In the forensic anthropological discipline, the robustness of any given standard should not only be evaluated according to its stated error but by the accuracy and precision of the raw data (measurements) from which they are derived. In the absence of Australian contemporary documented skeletal collections, medical scans (e.g. multislice computed tomography-MSCT) offer a source of contemporary population-specific data for the formulation of skeletal standards. As the acquisition of morphometric data from clinical MSCT scans is still relatively novel, the purpose of this study is to assess validity of the raw data that is being used to formulate Australian forensic standards. Six human crania were subjected to clinical MSCT at a slice thickness of 0.9 mm. Each cranium and its corresponding volume-rendered three-dimensional MSCT image were measured multiple times. Whether differences between MSCT and dry bone interlandmark measurements are negligible is statistically quantified; intra- and inter-observer measurement error is also assessed. We found that traditional bone measurements are more precise than their MSCT counterparts, although overall differences between the two data acquisition methods are negligible compared to sample variance. Cranial variation accounted on average for more than 20× the variance explained by MSCT vs. bone measurements. Similarly, although differences between operators were sometimes significant compared to intra-operator variance, they were negligible when compared to sample variance, which was on average 12× larger than that due to inter-operator differences.",
author = "Daniel Franklin and Andrea Cardini and Ambika Flavel and Algis Kuliukas and Murray Marks and Rob Hart and Charles Oxnard and Paul O'Higgins",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00414-012-0772-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "505--520",
journal = "International Journal of Legal Medicine",
issn = "0937-9827",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Concordance of traditional osteometric and volume-rendered MSCT interlandmark cranial measurements

AU - Franklin, Daniel

AU - Cardini, Andrea

AU - Flavel, Ambika

AU - Kuliukas, Algis

AU - Marks, Murray

AU - Hart, Rob

AU - Oxnard, Charles

AU - O'Higgins, Paul

PY - 2013/3/1

Y1 - 2013/3/1

N2 - The statistical quantification of error and uncertainty is inherently intertwined with ascertaining the admissibility of forensic evidence in a court of law. In the forensic anthropological discipline, the robustness of any given standard should not only be evaluated according to its stated error but by the accuracy and precision of the raw data (measurements) from which they are derived. In the absence of Australian contemporary documented skeletal collections, medical scans (e.g. multislice computed tomography-MSCT) offer a source of contemporary population-specific data for the formulation of skeletal standards. As the acquisition of morphometric data from clinical MSCT scans is still relatively novel, the purpose of this study is to assess validity of the raw data that is being used to formulate Australian forensic standards. Six human crania were subjected to clinical MSCT at a slice thickness of 0.9 mm. Each cranium and its corresponding volume-rendered three-dimensional MSCT image were measured multiple times. Whether differences between MSCT and dry bone interlandmark measurements are negligible is statistically quantified; intra- and inter-observer measurement error is also assessed. We found that traditional bone measurements are more precise than their MSCT counterparts, although overall differences between the two data acquisition methods are negligible compared to sample variance. Cranial variation accounted on average for more than 20× the variance explained by MSCT vs. bone measurements. Similarly, although differences between operators were sometimes significant compared to intra-operator variance, they were negligible when compared to sample variance, which was on average 12× larger than that due to inter-operator differences.

AB - The statistical quantification of error and uncertainty is inherently intertwined with ascertaining the admissibility of forensic evidence in a court of law. In the forensic anthropological discipline, the robustness of any given standard should not only be evaluated according to its stated error but by the accuracy and precision of the raw data (measurements) from which they are derived. In the absence of Australian contemporary documented skeletal collections, medical scans (e.g. multislice computed tomography-MSCT) offer a source of contemporary population-specific data for the formulation of skeletal standards. As the acquisition of morphometric data from clinical MSCT scans is still relatively novel, the purpose of this study is to assess validity of the raw data that is being used to formulate Australian forensic standards. Six human crania were subjected to clinical MSCT at a slice thickness of 0.9 mm. Each cranium and its corresponding volume-rendered three-dimensional MSCT image were measured multiple times. Whether differences between MSCT and dry bone interlandmark measurements are negligible is statistically quantified; intra- and inter-observer measurement error is also assessed. We found that traditional bone measurements are more precise than their MSCT counterparts, although overall differences between the two data acquisition methods are negligible compared to sample variance. Cranial variation accounted on average for more than 20× the variance explained by MSCT vs. bone measurements. Similarly, although differences between operators were sometimes significant compared to intra-operator variance, they were negligible when compared to sample variance, which was on average 12× larger than that due to inter-operator differences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879501203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879501203&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00414-012-0772-9

DO - 10.1007/s00414-012-0772-9

M3 - Article

VL - 127

SP - 505

EP - 520

JO - International Journal of Legal Medicine

JF - International Journal of Legal Medicine

SN - 0937-9827

IS - 2

ER -