ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Three methods of estimating age-at-death using three different regions on the os coxa.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding population diversity is necessary for the development of forensic anthropology methods that address population affinity. The commonly used age-at-death estimation methods for adult skeletal remains are based on American data sets, which include individuals with both European and African population affinities. Evaluating these methods on different skeletal collections worldwide is hampered by our incomplete understanding of population diversity. Hence, this study evaluated three methods of estimating age-at-death using the pubic symphyseal surface, auricular surface, and acetabulum regions on the os coxa. A total sample size of 143 os coxae from Black South African and White South African population groups was examined in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). The accuracy (chi-squared test of independence), bias, absolute error (mean absolute error, Wilcoxon signed-rank test), interobserver, and intraobserver correlation coefficients (Cronbach's alpha test) were recorded for each method. The auricular surface method scored the highest accuracy; however, the reliability of this method is still questionable, as it also scored the highest absolute error and bias among the three methods on both population groups. Compared to the pubic symphyseal surface and auricular surface methods, the acetabulum method showed promise, as it maintained lower bias and absolute error and was consistent when re-evaluated in both populations. Laterality was insignificant for any of the three methods. Sex was insignificant for the acetabulum and auricular surface methods, but significant for the pubic symphyseal surface method in the White South African samples and insignificant in Black South African samples. These results demonstrated the need for creating population-specific standards, including precisely defined age ranges and reference samples catered to the diverse South African populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.