Letter to the Editor — A Code of Practice for the Establishment and Use of Authentic Human Skeleton Collections in Forensic Anthropology

Stephan, Carl N.; Ross, Ann H.

doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13859

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This article's studies, thereby, have the greatest applicability to casework radiographic comparisons conducted on skeletonized remains in contrast to soft tissue encased decedents. Note that while we use both of the terms skeletization and skeletonization in this article, we purposefully distinguish between them based on their established meanings [41, 42]. Skeletization is used to signify the reduction of the body to the skeleton via removal of the soft tissues with surgical instruments [43, 44].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infra‐cranial radiographic comparison for human identification: A study of analyst expertise

Hona

Olditch

Byrd

et al. 2021

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiographic comparison for identification is widely utilized. However, these methods are qualitative and subject to analyst ability to correctly read and interpret radiographs. With regards to infra-cranial radiographs, few studies have been conducted to explore the role of practitioner expertize on correct classification rates (CCRs).Here, we undertake two such studies using forensic anthropologists [American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) certified, practicing but not board-certified anthropologists, and chest radiograph comparison (CXR) anthropologists trained via the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency CXR competency training program] and compare their results to novices. To ensure participants only referred to the same skeletal morphology, we cropped radiographs to single bones. An array of four simulated antemortem radiographs was presented to each assessor with each postmortem radiograph. Assessors evaluated arrays for a correct match, which was always present, yielding a 25% rate for random correct selections. Study 1 used anteroposterior C7, posteroanterior second metacarpal, and lateral calcaneus radiographs (three arrays each for nine arrays total), which yielded 86, 81, 69, and 68% mean CCRs for CXR experts, ABFA anthropologists, non-ABFA anthropologists and novices, respectively.Study 2 used anteroposterior C7 and left clavicles (three arrays each for six arrays total), yielding mean CCRs of 100, 96, and 84% for CXR experts, ABFA anthropologists and novices, respectively. As reflected by the CCRs, expertise is clearly a factor for radiographic comparisons, evident not just between novices and anthropologists, but also between anthropologists. We recommend all radiographic comparison analysts be subject to competency/proficiency tests prior to their engagement for forensic casework.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infra‐cranial radiographic comparison for human identification: A study of analyst expertise

Hona

Olditch

Byrd

et al. 2021

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While we use both of the terms "skeletization" and "skeletonization" in this paper, we purposefully distinguish between them based on their established meanings [53,54]. Skeletization is used to signify the reduction of the body to the skeleton via removal of the soft tissues, in this case using surgical instruments [55,56].…”

Section: Me Thods 21 | Radiograph Acquisitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infracranial radiographic comparison for human identification: A study of image quality and tissue shielding effects

Hona

Byrd²,

Stephan

2021

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we explore how image resolution and tissue shielding can impact correct classification rates (CCRs) of infracranial radiographic comparisons undertaken using small field‐of‐view radiographs. Thirty‐six identification arrays (using clavicles and seventh cervical vertebra) were constructed with each array comprised of five radiographs: one X‐ray of a single dry bone (postmortem [PM] skeletal image) and four simulated antemortem [AM] radiographs (radiographs taken pre‐skeletization). One AM radiograph in each array represented the ground truth match to the PM radiograph (=25% rate of randomly selecting the correct match). Radiographs were digitally manipulated, so that four varieties of decreasing blur (Gaussian blur = 12–0 pr across 24 arrays), and, for PM clavicles, four varieties of decreasing hard tissue shielding (opacity of 40–0% across 12 arrays) existed. Arrays were evaluated, for their correct PM/AM pair, by 8 anthropologists trained in chest radiograph comparison (CXR; either currently or formerly competency certified by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency CXR training program), 28 current American Board of Forensic Anthropology (ABFA) diplomates and 30 novices. Analysts’ CCRs substantially improved when Gaussian blur was <10 pr (55% CCR at >10 pr vs. 89% for <10 pr). Tissue shielding effects increased CCRs on average by +10% for each −10% opacity step (between 40–0% opacity). The CXR anthropologists were the most tolerant of the more challenging identification contexts (highest blur and opacity), reconfirming that analyst training and expertise is an important factor, especially when poorer quality radiographic images are the subject of analysis.

show abstract

The Law, Ethics and Body Donation: A Tale of Two Bequeathal Programs

Hutchinson

Kramer

Billings

et al. 2019

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, legislature has been utilized to facilitate appropriate use of cadavers in the anatomical sciences. However, cadaver acquisition and use have also been guided by ethically appropriate and morally acceptable principles. Various global and regional frameworks of “ethical practice” guide body donation, including the use of unclaimed bodies by institutions. These frameworks are responsive to, and reciprocal with the various ethical, moral and legal factors that influence the development of body donation programs. This reciprocity supports the notion that anatomists and anatomical societies have a responsibility to advocate for legal reform when required. In this study, two body bequest programs from geopolitically and socially disparate countries are used as cases to contrast existing legal and governance frameworks for body donation and to examine whether anatomists can direct the acquisition of ethically donated cadavers. The study includes an Australian donor program that has exclusively accepted bequests since its inception, and a South African program that has recently transitioned to a bequest system. Elements such as consent by next‐of‐kin and Inspector of Anatomy, use of unclaimed bodies and ethics committee approval amongst others, are compared. It is acknowledged that legal frameworks for cadaver acquisition generally deliver broad guidance on acceptable utilization of bodies for the anatomical sciences. However, professional discretion is of importance in adapting to societal needs and values. Thus, while anatomists have been able to progress toward more ethical practice than that which is required by the law, they must continue to do so as societal values evolve.

show abstract

Letter to the Editor — A Code of Practice for the Establishment and Use of Authentic Human Skeleton Collections in Forensic Anthropology

Cited by 7 publications

References 31 publications

Infra‐cranial radiographic comparison for human identification: A study of analyst expertise

Infra‐cranial radiographic comparison for human identification: A study of analyst expertise

Infracranial radiographic comparison for human identification: A study of image quality and tissue shielding effects

The Law, Ethics and Body Donation: A Tale of Two Bequeathal Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About