• This record comes from PubMed

Stability of upper face sexual dimorphism in central European populations (Czech Republic) during the modern age

. 2018 Jan ; 132 (1) : 321-330. [epub] 20170621

Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic

Document type Journal Article

Grant support
DKRVO 2016/18, 00023272 Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic

Links

PubMed 28634680
DOI 10.1007/s00414-017-1625-3
PII: 10.1007/s00414-017-1625-3
Knihovny.cz E-resources

One of the most fundamental issues in forensic anthropology is the determination of sex and population affinity based on various skeletal elements. Therefore, we compared the sexual dimorphism of the upper facial skeleton from a recent Czech population (twenty-first century) with that of a population from Early Modern Age Bohemia (sixteenth to eighteenth centuries). Methods of geometric morphometrics were applied. According to the results, sexual dimorphism in terms of size, shape, and form was statistically significant in both populations. The best results of sex estimation originated from analyses of form. Thus, both size and shape differences should be taken into account for determination of the sex. The accuracy of prediction achieved 91.1% for individuals in the recent population and 87.5% for individuals from the early modern population. Only minor differences were found between sexual dimorphism in the studied populations. We conclude that sexual dimorphism of the upper facial skeleton is stable during the relatively short time period.

See more in PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2015 Sep;129(5):1145-53 PubMed

Homo. 2013 Dec;64(6):437-53 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2005 Jan 29;147(2-3):113-7 PubMed

Homo. 2009;60(1):29-43 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1963 Mar;21(1):53-68 PubMed

Eur J Orthod. 2012 Oct;34(5):575-81 PubMed

Homo. 2010 Feb;61(1):16-32 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2007 Nov;121(6):507-10 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Nov 22;269(1507):2285-9 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2006 Mar;51(2):248-52 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011 Aug;145(4):548-59 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1969 Mar;30(2):297-301 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Feb;117(2):157-68 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2006 Jul;51(4):729-35 PubMed

J Interdiscip Hist. 1980;10:643-63 PubMed

J Forensic Leg Med. 2013 May;20(4):234-8 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 1998 Nov 30;98(1-2):9-16 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2011 Mar;56(2):289-96 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2012 Jul;126(4):549-58 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012 Apr;147(4):661-70 PubMed

Homo. 2009;60(6):517-34 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2008 Jan 30;174(2-3):152-6 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2007 Sep;134(1):24-35 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998 Sep;107(1):97-112 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2006 Sep;51(5):985-9 PubMed

Am J Hum Biol. 2000 May;12(3):327-338 PubMed

Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2006 Dec;2(4):263-8 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2016 May;61(3):743-51 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2014 Jun;154(2):259-69 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Nov;143(3):417-25 PubMed

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Jul;87(7):1631-47 PubMed

Public Health Nutr. 2001 Oct;4(5):999-1003 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2002 Jan;47(1):19-24 PubMed

Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo. 2003 Jan-Feb;58(1):15-20 PubMed

Int J Legal Med. 2009 Jan;123(1):25-33 PubMed

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jul;132(1):63-70 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2008 Jan;53(1):54-7 PubMed

Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jan 7;275(1630):71-6 PubMed

Ann Hum Biol. 2015;42(3):253-9 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2005 May;50(3):493-500 PubMed

Forensic Sci Int. 2014 May;238:133-40 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 1991 Mar;36(2):501-11 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 May;136(1):39-50 PubMed

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999 Jan;108(1):91-6 PubMed

Am J Hum Biol. 2006 Sep-Oct;18(5):668-75 PubMed

J Forensic Leg Med. 2011 Jul;18(5):208-12 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2009 Sep;54(5):996-1000 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 2008 Jul;53(4):786-9 PubMed

J Forensic Sci. 1990 Nov;35(6):1384-92 PubMed

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...