Cargando…

Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males

 : Trotter and Gleser presented two sets of stature estimation equations for the US White males in their 1952 and 1958 studies. Following Trotter’s suggestion favouring the 1952 equations simply due to the smaller standard errors, the 1958 equations have been seldom used and have gone without additi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeong, Yangseung, Taylor, Rebecca J, Jung, Yochun, Woo, Eun Jin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37415802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad008
_version_ 1785058640324984832
author Jeong, Yangseung
Taylor, Rebecca J
Jung, Yochun
Woo, Eun Jin
author_facet Jeong, Yangseung
Taylor, Rebecca J
Jung, Yochun
Woo, Eun Jin
author_sort Jeong, Yangseung
collection PubMed
description  : Trotter and Gleser presented two sets of stature estimation equations for the US White males in their 1952 and 1958 studies. Following Trotter’s suggestion favouring the 1952 equations simply due to the smaller standard errors, the 1958 equations have been seldom used and have gone without additional systematic validation tests. This study aims to assess the performance of the Trotter and Gleser 1952, Trotter and Gleser 1958, and FORDISC equations for the White males in a quantitative and systematic way, particularly when applied to the WWII and Korean War casualties. In sum, 27 equations (7 from the 1952 study, 10 from the 1958 study, and 10 from FORDISC) were applied to the osteometric data of 240 accounted-for White male casualties of the WWII and Korean War. Then, the bias, accuracy, and Bayes factor for each set of stature estimates were calculated. The results show that, overall, Trotter and Gleser’s 1958 equations outperform the 1952 and FORDISC equations in terms of all three measures. Particularly, the equations with higher Bayes factors produced stature estimates where distributions were closer to that of the reported statures than those with lower Bayes factors. When considering Bayes factors, the best performing equation was the “Radius” equation from the 1958 study (BF = 15.34) followed by the “Humerus+Radius” equation from FORDISC (BF = 14.42) and the “Fibula” equation from the 1958 study (BF = 13.82). The results of this study will provide researchers and practitioners applying the Trotter and Gleser stature estimation method with a practical guide for equation selection. KEY POINTS: The performance of three stature estimation methods was compared quantitatively. Trotter and Gleser’s (1952, 1958) and FORDISC White male equations were included. Overall, Trotter and Gleser’s 1958 method outperformed the other methods. This study provides a practical guide for stature estimation equation selection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10265954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102659542023-07-06 Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males Jeong, Yangseung Taylor, Rebecca J Jung, Yochun Woo, Eun Jin Forensic Sci Res Research Article  : Trotter and Gleser presented two sets of stature estimation equations for the US White males in their 1952 and 1958 studies. Following Trotter’s suggestion favouring the 1952 equations simply due to the smaller standard errors, the 1958 equations have been seldom used and have gone without additional systematic validation tests. This study aims to assess the performance of the Trotter and Gleser 1952, Trotter and Gleser 1958, and FORDISC equations for the White males in a quantitative and systematic way, particularly when applied to the WWII and Korean War casualties. In sum, 27 equations (7 from the 1952 study, 10 from the 1958 study, and 10 from FORDISC) were applied to the osteometric data of 240 accounted-for White male casualties of the WWII and Korean War. Then, the bias, accuracy, and Bayes factor for each set of stature estimates were calculated. The results show that, overall, Trotter and Gleser’s 1958 equations outperform the 1952 and FORDISC equations in terms of all three measures. Particularly, the equations with higher Bayes factors produced stature estimates where distributions were closer to that of the reported statures than those with lower Bayes factors. When considering Bayes factors, the best performing equation was the “Radius” equation from the 1958 study (BF = 15.34) followed by the “Humerus+Radius” equation from FORDISC (BF = 14.42) and the “Fibula” equation from the 1958 study (BF = 13.82). The results of this study will provide researchers and practitioners applying the Trotter and Gleser stature estimation method with a practical guide for equation selection. KEY POINTS: The performance of three stature estimation methods was compared quantitatively. Trotter and Gleser’s (1952, 1958) and FORDISC White male equations were included. Overall, Trotter and Gleser’s 1958 method outperformed the other methods. This study provides a practical guide for stature estimation equation selection. Oxford University Press 2023-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10265954/ /pubmed/37415802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad008 Text en © The Author(s) 2023. Published by OUP on behalf of the Academy of Forensic Science. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jeong, Yangseung
Taylor, Rebecca J
Jung, Yochun
Woo, Eun Jin
Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males
title Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males
title_full Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males
title_fullStr Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males
title_full_unstemmed Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males
title_short Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equations outperform Trotter and Gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the US White males
title_sort trotter and gleser’s (1958) equations outperform trotter and gleser’s (1952) equations in stature estimation of the us white males
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37415802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad008
work_keys_str_mv AT jeongyangseung trotterandglesers1958equationsoutperformtrotterandglesers1952equationsinstatureestimationoftheuswhitemales
AT taylorrebeccaj trotterandglesers1958equationsoutperformtrotterandglesers1952equationsinstatureestimationoftheuswhitemales
AT jungyochun trotterandglesers1958equationsoutperformtrotterandglesers1952equationsinstatureestimationoftheuswhitemales
AT wooeunjin trotterandglesers1958equationsoutperformtrotterandglesers1952equationsinstatureestimationoftheuswhitemales