-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Technical note: The effect of midshaft location on the error ranges of femoral and tibial cross-sectional parameters
V. Sládek, M. Berner, P. Galeta, L. Friedl, S. Kudrnová
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, historické články, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
19919000
DOI
10.1002/ajpa.21153
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- anatomie průřezová metody MeSH
- antropologie fyzická metody MeSH
- antropometrie metody MeSH
- dějiny starověku MeSH
- femur anatomie a histologie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- tibie anatomie a histologie MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- zkameněliny MeSH
- Check Tag
- dějiny starověku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- historické články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
In comparing long-bone cross-sectional geometric properties between individuals, percentages of bone length are often used to identify equivalent locations along the diaphysis. In fragmentary specimens where bone lengths cannot be measured, however, these locations must be estimated more indirectly. In this study, we examine the effect of inaccurately located femoral and tibial midshafts on estimation of geometric properties. The error ranges were compared on 30 femora and tibiae from the Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Cross-sections were obtained at each 1% interval from 60 to 40% of length using CT scans. Five percent of deviation from midshaft properties was used as the maximum acceptable error. Reliability was expressed by mean percentage differences, standard deviation of percentage differences, mean percentage absolute differences, limits of agreement, and mean accuracy range (MAR) (range within which mean deviation from true midshaft values was less than 5%). On average, tibial cortical area and femoral second moments of area are the least sensitive to positioning error, with mean accuracy ranges wide enough for practical application in fragmentary specimens (MAR = 40-130 mm). In contrast, tibial second moments of area are the most sensitive to error in midshaft location (MAR = 14-20 mm). Individuals present significant variation in morphology and thus in error ranges for different properties. For highly damaged fossil femora and tibiae we recommend carrying out additional tests to better establish specific errors associated with uncertain length estimates.
Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Department of Anthropology Natural History Museum Vienna Austria
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc12025463
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20130302164835.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 120816s2010 xxu f 000 0#eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1002/ajpa.21153 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)19919000
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxu
- 100 1_
- $a Sládek, Vladimír, $d 1969- $7 mzk2003187360 $u Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. sladekv@yahoo.fr
- 245 10
- $a Technical note: The effect of midshaft location on the error ranges of femoral and tibial cross-sectional parameters / $c V. Sládek, M. Berner, P. Galeta, L. Friedl, S. Kudrnová
- 520 9_
- $a In comparing long-bone cross-sectional geometric properties between individuals, percentages of bone length are often used to identify equivalent locations along the diaphysis. In fragmentary specimens where bone lengths cannot be measured, however, these locations must be estimated more indirectly. In this study, we examine the effect of inaccurately located femoral and tibial midshafts on estimation of geometric properties. The error ranges were compared on 30 femora and tibiae from the Eneolithic and Bronze Age. Cross-sections were obtained at each 1% interval from 60 to 40% of length using CT scans. Five percent of deviation from midshaft properties was used as the maximum acceptable error. Reliability was expressed by mean percentage differences, standard deviation of percentage differences, mean percentage absolute differences, limits of agreement, and mean accuracy range (MAR) (range within which mean deviation from true midshaft values was less than 5%). On average, tibial cortical area and femoral second moments of area are the least sensitive to positioning error, with mean accuracy ranges wide enough for practical application in fragmentary specimens (MAR = 40-130 mm). In contrast, tibial second moments of area are the most sensitive to error in midshaft location (MAR = 14-20 mm). Individuals present significant variation in morphology and thus in error ranges for different properties. For highly damaged fossil femora and tibiae we recommend carrying out additional tests to better establish specific errors associated with uncertain length estimates.
- 650 _2
- $a anatomie průřezová $x metody $7 D019412
- 650 _2
- $a antropologie fyzická $x metody $7 D000885
- 650 _2
- $a antropometrie $x metody $7 D000886
- 650 _2
- $a femur $x anatomie a histologie $7 D005269
- 650 _2
- $a zkameněliny $7 D005580
- 650 _2
- $a dějiny starověku $7 D049690
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a výzkumný projekt $7 D012107
- 650 _2
- $a tibie $x anatomie a histologie $7 D013977
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a historické články $7 D016456
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Berner, Margit $u Department of Anthropology, Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria
- 700 1_
- $a Galeta, Patrik, $d 1974- $7 mzk2003187362
- 700 1#
- $a Friedl, Lukáš. $7 _AN071562
- 700 1#
- $a Kudrnová, Šárka. $7 _AN071563
- 773 0_
- $w MED00000282 $t American journal of physical anthropology $x 1096-8644 $g Roč. 141, č. 2 (2010), s. 325-332
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19919000 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y m
- 990 __
- $a 20120816 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20130302165046 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 947505 $s 782809
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2010 $b 141 $c 2 $d 325-332 $i 1096-8644 $m American journal of physical anthropology $n Am J Phys Anthropol $x MED00000282
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20120816/10/02