A repeatable geometric morphometric approach to the analysis of hand entheseal three‐dimensional form

Abstract

The introduced methodology can set a reliable basis for further research on the factors affecting entheseal shape. Using both size and shape, variables can provide further information on entheseal variation and its biomechanical implications. The low entheseal variation by age verifies that specimens under 50 years of age are not substantially affected by age-related changes. The lack of correlation between entheseal shape and bone length or age implies that other factors may regulate entheseal surfaces. Future research should focus on multivariate shape patterns among entheses and their association with occupation.

A three‐dimensional digital microscopic investigation of entheseal changes as skeletal activity markers

“…Karakostis et al (2017) used the same methodology and identified similar patterns in enteheseal surface among individuals with similar levels of activity (intense manual labor vs. less strenuous and/or highly mechanized occupations). More recently, Karakostis et al (2018) proposed a geometric morphometric approach that allows the quantification of the threedimensional shape of hand entheses, overcoming the limitation of the previous two papers, which captured exclusively entheseal size. A limitation of existing quantitative studies is that they focus on the surface area of the entheses rather than EC shape.…”

“…A limitation of existing quantitative studies is that they focus on the surface area of the entheses rather than EC shape. As stated in the Introduction, the only exception to this pattern is the Karakostis et al (2018) paper, but even in this case the quantification approach adopted did not divide the (fibrocartilaginous) enthesis in zones, neither did it consider changes such as bone resorption or textural change.…”

“…Other recent studies have adopted continuous quantitative recording methods, employing three-dimensional scanning technologies (Karakostis & Lorenzo, 2016;Karakostis, Hotz, Scherf, Wahl, & Harvati, 2017, 2018Noldner & Edgar, 2013;Nolte & Wilczak, 2013). A limitation of these quantitative studies is that, with the exception of the Karakostis et al (2018) paper, they focus only on the surface area of the entheses, failing to account for shape differences. Even in the Karakostis et al (2018) paper, which represents an important development in the direction of employing geometric morphometric methods in EC studies, the quantification approach does not effectively take into account prior morphological methods for EC scoring, in the sense that it does not divide the (fibrocartilaginous) enthesis in zones and it does not account for bone resorption such as micro-and macro-porosity or for variables such as textural change.…”

Entheseal changes in ancient Egyptians from the pyramid builders of Giza—Old Kingdom

“…Recently, several publications cautioned that the association of EC to physical activity might not be as strong as it was thought a decade ago (Cardoso & Henderson, ; Niinimäki, ; Niinimäki & Sotos, ; Villotte & Knüsel, ; Zumwalt, ). However, the conclusion of some of these reports may have been strongly influenced by their methodological choices (Karakostis, Hotz, Scherf, Wahl, & Harvati, , ). In fact, several other recent studies reiterated the role of physical activity in the expression of EC (Karakostis et al, , ; Lieverse et al, ; Milella, Cardoso, Assis, Lopreno, & Speith, ; Schrader, , ; Wagner, ; Yonemoto, ; Zabecki, ).…”

“…However, the conclusion of some of these reports may have been strongly influenced by their methodological choices (Karakostis, Hotz, Scherf, Wahl, & Harvati, , ). In fact, several other recent studies reiterated the role of physical activity in the expression of EC (Karakostis et al, , ; Lieverse et al, ; Milella, Cardoso, Assis, Lopreno, & Speith, ; Schrader, , ; Wagner, ; Yonemoto, ; Zabecki, ).…”