Abstract
Simple SummaryForensic anthropologists often face the task of analysing a mixed group of skeletal remains or matching a solitary bone with the rest of a skeleton to determine if it belongs to the same individual. One of the best ways to do this is by pair-matching left and right bones of the same type. Common pair-matching methods experience issues such as high levels of subjectivity, lack of reliability, or expensive cost of implementation. This study explores the application of the relatively new method, mesh-to-mesh value comparison (MVC), which matches paired bones based on morphological shape to determine the likelihood that they derive from the same individual. This study sought to expand on the success found in past publications using MVC and to see how well it performed on a sample of clavicles, a bone known for having a high degree of bilateral variability, of 80 modern Turkish individuals. This study also explored whether MVC can reliably match fragmented bones to their intact counterpart. Results show MVC successfully matched 88.8% of paired clavicles and suggest the method continues to be a promising avenue for pair-matching that is not affected by ancestry and may be applicable to fragmented remains with further study.Many cases encountered by forensic anthropologists involve commingled remains or isolated elements. Common methods for analysing these contexts are characterised by limitations such as high degrees of subjectivity, high cost of application, or low proven accuracy. This study sought to test mesh-to-mesh value comparison (MCV), a relatively new method for pair-matching skeletal elements, to validate the claims that the technique is unaffected by age, sex and pathology. The sample consisted of 160 three-dimensional clavicle models created from computed tomography (CT) scans of a contemporary Turkish population. Additionally, this research explored the application of MVC to match fragmented elements to their intact counterparts by creating a sample of 480 simulated fragments, consisting of three different types based on the region of the bone they originate from. For comparing whole clavicles, this resulted in a sensitivity value of 87.6% and specificity of 90.9% using ROC analysis comparing clavicles. For the fragment comparisons, each type was compared to the entire clavicles of the opposite side. The results included a range of sensitivity values from 81.3% to 87.6%. Overall results are promising and the MVC technique seems to be a useful technique for matching paired elements that can be accurately applied to a Modern Turkish sample.
Highlights
Commingled assemblages and isolated skeletal elements are often encountered in the archaeological record as well as in contemporary forensic-related fieldwork [1,2]
The lowest common value comparison method utilises a matrix method for selection in which the lowest mesh-to-mesh values for both the left and right sides must agree in order for a match to be determined
This method was developed by the authors of the original publication about mesh-to-mesh value comparison as an alternative to the previously attempted method of determining a threshold value to use in order to determine matches
Summary
Commingled assemblages and isolated skeletal elements are often encountered in the archaeological record as well as in contemporary forensic-related fieldwork [1,2]. The concept of commingled remains refers to a single context in which there is a mixing of fragmented or whole skeletal elements belonging to two or more individuals [3,4]. The commingled nature of the context can arise through a multitude of processes including animal scavenging, abiotic taphonomic processes, and human activity [4,5,6]. These atypical contexts provide unique challenges in determining the ideal method to sort and analyse the associated osteological material in the pursuit of answering important questions relevant to the study of past populations or forensic investigations [6,7]. One of the primary steps for approaching these challenges is to quantify the skeletal elements, define the minimum number of individuals, and re-associate as many of the skeletal elements as possible in order to individualise the sample [6,8,10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
