The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Four Skeletal Methods for the Estimation of Age at Death on White and Black Adults*
Abstract
ABSTRACT: When analyzing human adult skeletal remains, it is often difficult to decide whether a single aging method will give a more reliable age estimation than a combination of methods. This study evaluates four macroscopic indicators for age estimation on 218 American White and Black individuals, ranging in age from 25 to 90 years of age, from the Terry collection. Individuals in the sample were selected to have a balanced race, sex, and age distribution. The following aging methods were applied to each skeleton by one experienced observer: the Suchey–Brooks (SB) pubic symphysis method, the Lovejoy auricular surface method, the monoradicular teeth Lamendin (LM) method, and the Işcan (IC) method for fourth ribs. The statistical study involved the evaluation of inaccuracy and bias (based on median age) for each age indicator and the combination of methods using Principal component analysis (PCA). Analysis was performed on the entire sample, then by race, then sex, and then age group (25–40 years, 41–60 years, and >60 years). PCA was the most accurate method for both racial groups when all age groups are analyzed together. When the sample was divided into age groups, SB was the most accurate for young adults (25–40 years) and LM was the most accurate for middle adults (41–60 years). After the age of 60, all methods are highly inaccurate, although IC gives the lowest inaccuracy. As regards bias, the study highlights the tendency of all methods to overestimate the age of young individuals and to underestimate in the older age group. No single skeletal indicator of age at death is ever likely to reflect accurately the many factors that accumulate with chronological age. In fact, one must use as many dental and skeletal indicators as possible. However, in order to maximize the potential of each method, in the final evaluation one should consider mainly the method or methods that have a higher accuracy for a particular age range.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The problem of aging human remains and living individuals: A review
Cunha, E., Baccino, E., Martrille, L., Ramsthaler, F., Prieto, J., Schuliar, Y., Lynnerup, N., & Cattaneo, C. (2009) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.09.008 · Cited by 545
Self-citationA Comparison of Different Age Estimation Methods of the Adult Pelvis
Miranker, M. (2016) · Journal of Forensic Sciences · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13130 · Cited by 58
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
- Martrille, L., Ubelaker, D. H., Cattaneo, C., Seguret, F., Tremblay, M., & Baccino, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-31
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 302-307
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W2039208557
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 82.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Comparison of Four Skeletal Methods for the Estimation of Age at Death on White and Black Adults*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00367.x
- The paper
- Martrille, L., Ubelaker, D. H., Cattaneo, C., Seguret, F., Tremblay, M., & Baccino, E. (2007). Comparison of Four Skeletal Methods for the Estimation of Age at Death on White and Black Adults*. Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00367.x
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.