Estimating an individual body mass (BM) from the skeleton is a challenge for forensic anthropology. However, identifying someone's BMI (Body Mass Index) category, i.e. underweight, normal, overweight or obese, could contribute to identification. Individual BM is also known to influence the age-at-death estimation from the skeleton. Several methods are regularly used by both archaeologists and forensic practitioners to estimate individual BM. The most commonly used methods are based on femoral head breadth, or stature and bi-iliac breadth. However, those methods have been created from mean population BMs and are therefore meant to estimate the average BM of a population. Being that they are based on individual BM data and estimated femoral cortical areas, the newest published methods are supposed to be more accurate. We evaluated the accuracy and reliability of the most commonly used and most recent BM estimation methods (n=11) on a sample of 64 individuals. Both sexes and all BMI categories are represented, as well as a wide range of BM. Ages in this sample range from 20 to 87 years of age. Absolute and real differences between actual BM and estimated BM were assessed; they determined the accuracy for individual BM estimation and for average BM estimation of a population, respectively. The proportion of the sample whose estimated BM falls within ±10% and ±20% of their actual BM determines the reliability of the methods in our sample for, respectively, individual BM estimation and average BM of a population. The tested methods result in an absolute difference of 11kg-26kg±10kg with regards to prediction of individuals actual BM. The real differences are very variable from method to method, ranging from -14kg to 25kg. None of the tested methods is able to estimate BM of half of the sample within ±10% of their actual BM but most of them can estimate BM of more than half of the sample within ±20% of their actual BM. The errors increase with increasing BM, demonstrating a bias in all the methods. No bone variable tested correlated with BM. BMI categories were correctly predicted for less than 50% of the sample in most cases. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the 11 methods tested are not suited for estimating individual BM or for predicting BMI categories. However, they are accurate and reliable enough for estimating the average BM of a population.

Charles University Department of Software and Computer Science Education Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Malostranské Náměstí 25 118 00 Prague 1 Czech Republic

Charles University Laboratory of 3D Imaging and Analytical Methods Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics Faculty of Natural Sciences Viničná 7 128 43 Prague 2 Czech Republic

Université de Bordeaux PACEA UMR 5199 CNRS Bâtiment B8 Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire CS 50023 F 33400 Talence France

University of Copenhagen Laboratory of Biological Anthropology Department of Forensic Medicine Faculty of Health Sciences Frederik d 5 's Vej 11 DK 2100 Copenhagen Ø Denmark

000      

00000naa a2200000 a 4500

001      

bmc18033523

003      

CZ-PrNML

005      

20181017162852.0

007      

ta

008      

181008s2017 ie f 000 0|eng||

009      

AR

024    7_

$a 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.10.026 $2 doi

035    __

$a (PubMed)29174051

040    __

$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2

041    0_

$a eng

044    __

$a ie

100    1_

$a Lacoste Jeanson, Alizé $u Charles University, Laboratory of 3D Imaging and Analytical Methods, Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Viničná 7, 128 43 Prague 2, Czech Republic. Electronic address: alize.lacoste.jeanson@gmail.com.

245    10

$a Body mass estimation from the skeleton: An evaluation of 11 methods / $c A. Lacoste Jeanson, F. Santos, C. Villa, J. Dupej, N. Lynnerup, J. Brůžek,

520    9_

$a Estimating an individual body mass (BM) from the skeleton is a challenge for forensic anthropology. However, identifying someone's BMI (Body Mass Index) category, i.e. underweight, normal, overweight or obese, could contribute to identification. Individual BM is also known to influence the age-at-death estimation from the skeleton. Several methods are regularly used by both archaeologists and forensic practitioners to estimate individual BM. The most commonly used methods are based on femoral head breadth, or stature and bi-iliac breadth. However, those methods have been created from mean population BMs and are therefore meant to estimate the average BM of a population. Being that they are based on individual BM data and estimated femoral cortical areas, the newest published methods are supposed to be more accurate. We evaluated the accuracy and reliability of the most commonly used and most recent BM estimation methods (n=11) on a sample of 64 individuals. Both sexes and all BMI categories are represented, as well as a wide range of BM. Ages in this sample range from 20 to 87 years of age. Absolute and real differences between actual BM and estimated BM were assessed; they determined the accuracy for individual BM estimation and for average BM estimation of a population, respectively. The proportion of the sample whose estimated BM falls within ±10% and ±20% of their actual BM determines the reliability of the methods in our sample for, respectively, individual BM estimation and average BM of a population. The tested methods result in an absolute difference of 11kg-26kg±10kg with regards to prediction of individuals actual BM. The real differences are very variable from method to method, ranging from -14kg to 25kg. None of the tested methods is able to estimate BM of half of the sample within ±10% of their actual BM but most of them can estimate BM of more than half of the sample within ±20% of their actual BM. The errors increase with increasing BM, demonstrating a bias in all the methods. No bone variable tested correlated with BM. BMI categories were correctly predicted for less than 50% of the sample in most cases. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that the 11 methods tested are not suited for estimating individual BM or for predicting BMI categories. However, they are accurate and reliable enough for estimating the average BM of a population.

650    _2

$a dospělí $7 D000328

650    _2

$a senioři $7 D000368

650    _2

$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369

650    _2

$a tělesná výška $7 D001827

650    12

$a index tělesné hmotnosti $7 D015992

650    _2

$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260

650    _2

$a femur $x anatomie a histologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D005269

650    _2

$a soudní antropologie $x metody $7 D018732

650    _2

$a lidé $7 D006801

650    _2

$a os ilium $x anatomie a histologie $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D007085

650    _2

$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297

650    _2

$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875

650    _2

$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203

650    _2

$a počítačová rentgenová tomografie $7 D014057

650    _2

$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815

655    _2

$a časopisecké články $7 D016428

700    1_

$a Santos, Frédéric $u Université de Bordeaux, PACEA, UMR 5199, CNRS - Bâtiment B8, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS 50023, F-33400 Talence, France.

700    1_

$a Villa, Chiara $u University of Copenhagen, Laboratory of Biological Anthropology, Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Frederik d. 5.'s Vej 11, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

700    1_

$a Dupej, Ján $u Charles University, Laboratory of 3D Imaging and Analytical Methods, Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Viničná 7, 128 43 Prague 2, Czech Republic; Charles University, Department of Software and Computer Science Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Malostranské Náměstí 25, 118 00 Prague 1, Czech Republic.

700    1_

$a Lynnerup, Niels $u University of Copenhagen, Laboratory of Biological Anthropology, Department of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Frederik d. 5.'s Vej 11, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

700    1_

$a Brůžek, Jaroslav $u Charles University, Laboratory of 3D Imaging and Analytical Methods, Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Viničná 7, 128 43 Prague 2, Czech Republic; Université de Bordeaux, PACEA, UMR 5199, CNRS - Bâtiment B8, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS 50023, F-33400 Talence, France.

773    0_

$w MED00001844 $t Forensic science international $x 1872-6283 $g Roč. 281, č. - (2017), s. 183.e1-183.e8

856    41

$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29174051 $y Pubmed

910    __

$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0

990    __

$a 20181008 $b ABA008

991    __

$a 20181017163351 $b ABA008

999    __

$a ok $b bmc $g 1340930 $s 1030517

BAS    __

$a 3

BAS    __

$a PreBMC

BMC    __

$a 2017 $b 281 $c - $d 183.e1-183.e8 $e 20171122 $i 1872-6283 $m Forensic science international $n Forensic Sci Int $x MED00001844

LZP    __

$a Pubmed-20181008