A Review of Anatomical Terminology Variation for the Bony Pelvis

Abstract

Introduction There is a history of attempting to standardize anatomical terminology; primarily to create a link between clinical and anatomical terminology. However, differences in anatomical terminology between disciplines and over time have not been well explored. The objective of this study was to perform a thorough literature review, using multiple databases to examine the variation in anatomical terminology relating to the pelvis, a complex bony structure often referred to with multiple anatomical terms. Method Searches for scientific articles were conducted from PubMed, JSTOR, and EBSCO using six search terms: “innominate bone,” “os coxa,” “os coxae,” “ossa coxae,” “os innominatum,” and “coxal bone.” All journal articles, review articles, and conference proceedings available on these databases were examined from their earliest inclusions through December 2020. Initial search results were individually screened, duplicated entries were removed, and the remaining results were analyzed (n=1255). Descriptive statistics and plots were created in order to examine trends in term usage over time and between disciplines. A Random Forest Model (RFM; k=1000) was also used to examine the ability to correctly classify term using year, journal title, and journal audience. Results There were clear differences in terminology used to describe the bony pelvis. The term “innominate bone” (n=468) was the most commonly used term, followed by “os coxae” (n=366). The other terms were used less frequently: “os innominatum” (n=129), “os coxa” (n=124), “coxal bone” (n=106), and “ossa coxae” (n=62). Trends related to the usage of certain terms over time were also observed. For example, use of the term “coxal bone” began recently, while the term “innominate bone” has been the primarily favored term, steadily increasing overtime since the late 1800s. The term “os innominatum” was used relatively infrequently, with its peak usage in the late 1800s. The main disciplinary audiences were medicine (n=374), anthropology and archaeology (n=236), forensic science (n=155), general science (n=115), and biology (n=83). Forensic science began using these terms with high frequency beginning in the early 2000s, while medicine, anthropology, and archaeology have longer, more steady usage histories. Publications related to medicine (to include anatomy) were the most frequent users of innominate (46%), “coxal bone” (36%), “os innominatum” (30%), and “ossa coxae” (21%) while forensic science most commonly used “os coxa” (38%) and “os coxae” (21%). Due to the large variability in term usage over time, between journals, and journal audience, the RFM did not perform well (accuracy of 35%). Importantly, this was largely due to misclassifying other terms as either “innominate bone”; “os coxae”; or to a lesser extent “os innominatum”. Conclusions Variation in the terminology used to describe the bony pelvis exists both within and between disciplines, as well as over time. Significance and implications The language used to refer to the bony pelvis reflects a lack of consistency within and between disciplines, as well as shifts in term usage over time. Due to the often-interdisciplinary nature of research, it is important to standardize terminology.