2013
DOI: 10.7439/ijbr.v4i2.202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mastoid Process – A Tool for Sex Determination, an Anatomical Study in South Indian Skulls

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The asterion-mastoidale distance has achieved greatest accuracy in sex classification in samples from North India (Saini et al, 2012), Thailand (Manoonpol and Plakornkul, 2012) and Nigeria (Jaja et al, 2013). The mastoidale-porion distance provided the best classification rates for a population from southern India (n 5 80), yielding 100/ 80% correctly classified females/males using a stepwise method (Sharma et al, 2013). In Thais (n 5 150), it achieved 77% average accuracy, while in Nigerians (n 5 102) it correctly classified 86% females and 45% males.…”
Section: Metric Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The asterion-mastoidale distance has achieved greatest accuracy in sex classification in samples from North India (Saini et al, 2012), Thailand (Manoonpol and Plakornkul, 2012) and Nigeria (Jaja et al, 2013). The mastoidale-porion distance provided the best classification rates for a population from southern India (n 5 80), yielding 100/ 80% correctly classified females/males using a stepwise method (Sharma et al, 2013). In Thais (n 5 150), it achieved 77% average accuracy, while in Nigerians (n 5 102) it correctly classified 86% females and 45% males.…”
Section: Metric Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Mastoid width performed best for Japanese crania (n 5 87), achieving 92% and 86% correct classifications for females and males respectively (Nagaoka et al, 2008). The mastoidale-porion distance provided the best classification rates for a population from southern India (n 5 80), yielding 100/ 80% correctly classified females/males using a stepwise method (Sharma et al, 2013). For Europeans and Brazilians, mastoid process measurements have not proved very accurate.…”
Section: Metric Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the limitations mentioned above, the mastoid process often is used in anthropological and bioarchaeological studies that evaluate cranial sexual dimorphism, either by validating existing methods on different populations (Buran et al, 2018; Franklin et al, 2005b; Galdames et al, 2008; Gangrade et al, 2013; Jaja et al, 2013; Kanchan et al, 2013; Kittoe et al, 2012; Madadin et al, 2015; Manoonpol and Plakornkul, 2012; Sujarittham et al, 2011) or developing new ones (Abdel Fatah et al, 2014; Amin et al, 2015; de Paiva and Segre, 2003; Jung and Woo, 2016; Langley et al, 2017; Nagaoka et al, 2008; Sharma et al, 2013; Stevenson et al, 2009; Sumati et al, 2010). Mastoid length is also among the features included in the FORDISC software for sex/ancestry group classification (Jantz and Ousley, 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The superior border of the mastoid process of the temporal bone articulates with the parietal bone. The posterior border articulates with the occipital bone, and the anterior border is merged with the descending portion of the squamous segment of the temporal bone (galdames, Matamala and Smith, 2008;Sharma, nidugala and avadhani, 2013). determination of sex in fragmented remains is often a difficult task, as no isolated characteristic of any specific bone can perfectly decide the sex of a skeleton.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, a petrous part of temporal bone is proof against destruction and damage such as burning (Sumati et al, 2010;geethika and Thenmozhi, 2016). The mastoid process is favorable for sex determination as it's one of the most protected vicinity and proof against harm because of its anatomical position at the bottom of the skull (galdames, Matamala and Smith, 2008;Sharma, nidugala and avadhani, 2013;Passey et al, 2015;dofe et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%