The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of Different Age Estimation Methods of the Adult Pelvis
Abstract
The adult human pelvis is useful to estimate age because it contains three age indicators—the pubic symphysis, auricular surface, and acetabulum. This study tested the accuracy, inaccuracy, and bias of age estimation from the Suchey‐Brooks pubic symphysis, Osborne auricular surface, Rissech and Calce acetabulum aging methods, and a summary age of these indicators. The study sample consisted of 212 White individuals with known age and sex from the William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection. The Rissech method performed the best, was the most accurate method with smallest inaccuracy and bias, followed by the Osborne, Suchey‐Brooks, summary age, and then Calce methods. Though the Pearson correlation showed only the Suchey‐Brooks method to correlate significantly with known age, it is likely the Suchey‐Brooks study sample coincidentally reflected the age distribution of this test sample. Results suggested that Bayesian prediction may improve age estimation and should be applied to other age indicators.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The os coxa is a good landmark for estimating age‐at‐death because it has three age indicators, where bony changes correlate with the advancing age: viz. the pubic symphyseal surface, auricular surface, and the acetabulum [6].”
From Three methods of estimating age‐at‐death using three different regions on the os coxa (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“It became clear that accuracy declined in all methods after 60 years, both for the entire sample and when broken down into age groups [6].”
From Three methods of estimating age‐at‐death using three different regions on the os coxa (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“The rankings in terms of performance accuracy of these methods align with the results of a comparative study by Miranker [6] in the United States (Table 12).”
From Three methods of estimating age‐at‐death using three different regions on the os coxa (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Miranker [6] also noted that the middle age range of 41–80 years of age was less accurately represented by acetabulum methods, which has never been documented before.”
From Three methods of estimating age‐at‐death using three different regions on the os coxa (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
Citations
Cites
Brooks, S., & Suchey, J. M. (1990) · Human Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02437238 · Cited by 2,213
Lovejoy, C. O., Meindl, R. S., Pryzbeck, T. R., & Mensforth, R. P. (1985) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680103 · Cited by 2,062
Age estimation from the auricular surface of the ilium: a revised method
Buckberry, J. L., & Chamberlain, A. T. (2002) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.10130 · Cited by 853
Multifactorial determination of skeletal age at death: A method and blind tests of its accuracy
Lovejoy, C. O., Meindl, R. S., Mensforth, R. P., & Barton, T. J. (1985) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680102 · Cited by 532
Meindl, R. S., Lovejoy, C. O., Mensforth, R. P., & Walker, R. A. (1985) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330680104 · Cited by 293
Skeletal age at death: the reliability of cranial and pubic age indicators.
Brooks, S. (1955) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330130403 · Cited by 240
Estimation of age structure in anthropological demography
Konigsberg, L. W., & Frankenberg, S. R. (1992) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330890208 · Cited by 235
(2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542428 · Cited by 205
Comparison of Four Skeletal Methods for the Estimation of Age at Death on White and Black Adults*
Martrille, L., Ubelaker, D. H., Cattaneo, C., Seguret, F., Tremblay, M., & Baccino, E. (2007) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00367.x · Cited by 195
Reconsidering the auricular surface as an indicator of age at death
Osborne, D., Simmons, T., & Nawrocki, S. (2004) · Journal of Forensic and Sciences · doi:10.1520/jfs2003348 · Cited by 194
Cited by
Inter‐population differences in acetabular senescence: relevance in age‐at‐death estimation
San-Millán, M., & Rissech, C. (2023) · International Journal of Legal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00414-023-02954-x · Cited by 8
Three methods of estimating age‐at‐death using three different regions on the os coxa
Mkhonza, S. S., Ngubane, N. P., Aladeyelu, O. S., & Rennie, C. O. (2026) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.70219
Metadata
- Authors
- Miranker, M.
- Affiliations
- Department of Anthropology New York University 25 Waverly Place New York NY 10003
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-06-27
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1173-1179
- ISSN
- 0022-1198
- 1556-4029
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 35
- Language
- en
- Funders
- New York University
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Different Age Estimation Methods of the Adult Pelvis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1556-4029.13130
- The paper
- Miranker, M. (2016). A Comparison of Different Age Estimation Methods of the Adult Pelvis. Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13130
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
