The use of transition analysis in skeletal age estimation

Getz, Sara M.

doi:10.1002/wfs2.1378

Cited by 27 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, sampling biases inherent to modern skeletal reference material may mean they do not accurately represent the “target populations” of forensic anthropologists or bioarchaeologists (Albanese, 2003; Kimmerle, 2014; Kimmerle et al, 2008; Spradley, 2014). While it is acknowledged that donated skeletal collections do not necessarily reflect the demographics of the target samples, it is typically only the age distribution of the reference sample that is discussed, particularly in regard to age mimicry and how a biased reference sample may lead to inaccurate results in regression‐based age estimation methods (Bocquet‐Appel & Masset, 1982; Boldsen et al, 2002; Getz, 2020; Konigsberg & Frankenberg, 1994).…”

Section: The Inherent Complexities Of Reference Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of subadult skeletal and dental development based on living and deceased samples

Stull

Corron

et al. 2020

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives A fundamental assumption in biological anthropology is that living individuals will present with different growth than non‐survivors of the same population. The aim is to address the question of whether growth and development data of non‐survivors are reflective of the biological consequences of selective mortality and/or stress. Materials and Methods The study compares dental development and skeletal growth collected from radiographic images of contemporary samples of living and deceased individuals from the United States (birth to 20 years) and South Africa (birth to 12 years). Further evaluation of deceased individuals is used to explore differential patterns among manners of death (MOD). Results Results do not show any significant differences in skeletal growth or dental development between living and deceased individuals. However, in the South African deceased sample the youngest individuals exhibited substantially smaller diaphyseal lengths than the living sample, but by 2 years of age the differences were negligible. In the US sample, neither significant nor substantial differences were found in dental development or diaphyseal length according to MOD and age (>2 years of age), though some long bones in individuals <2 years of age did show significant differences. No significant differences were noted in diaphyseal length according to MOD and age in the SA sample. Discussion The current findings refute the idea that contemporary deceased and living individuals would present with differential growth and development patterns through all of ontogeny as well as the assumptions linking short stature, poor environments, and MOD.

show abstract

Section: The Inherent Complexities Of Reference Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of subadult skeletal and dental development based on living and deceased samples

Stull

Corron

et al. 2020

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a new version of TA software was published after this research was concluded, the findings are nonetheless meaningful because there has been a long delay between the publication of the original method and its widespread adoption (Getz, 2020), and it is likely that it will be several years before the revised software will be broadly employed. Additionally, these findings offer a more general caution: socioeconomic classes, religious identities, and political affiliations can contribute to differences in burial locations and whether or not the names of the dead are recorded.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Like other methods, TA tends to be more accurate in young adulthood. Whereas the method is more accurate for older adults, this is likely a result of the wider confidence intervals in later adulthood (Getz, 2020). To be sure, however, potential causes of decreased survivorship in the parish of St. Werburgh, including population mobility, practiced faith, occupation, and political affiliation, should be explored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of skeletal age‐estimation in the reconstruction of population survivorship in post‐medieval Dublin

Clark

2021

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioarchaeologists have long used age estimates from skeletal remains to draw conclusions about past lifeways and sociobiological phenomena such as health, stress, fertility, and frailty, among others. However, the estimation of age from skeletal remains is complicated by a multitude of well‐documented challenges including age mimicry, variation in degeneration, preservation, and accuracy between anatomical regions, individuals, and populations. The application of transition analysis to bioarchaeological age estimation was introduced nearly two decades ago to address some of these challenges, and the newest version promise further improvements. However, given the time lag between the introduction of a new technology and its adoption, continued evaluation of existing methods remains important. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of skeletal age‐at‐death estimation through transition analysis in the reconstruction of population survivorship in 18th century Dublin, Ireland. It was hypothesized that there would be no differences between the survival distributions calculated from 18th‐century parish records and survival distributions estimated from skeletal remains rom approximately the same time and location. Results show that survivorship estimated from transition analysis was approximately equal to the survivorship calculated from burial records in early‐ to mid‐adulthood, despite the fact that the samples do not represent the same individuals. However, transition analysis consistently produced higher survival curves in later adulthood, despite the lower socioeconomic statuses of the individuals represented in the skeletal sample relative to the individuals in the burial records, though these differences were not statistically significant for females. These findings suggest that bioarchaeologists should continue to exercise caution when drawing conclusions about populations based on skeletons.

show abstract

“…For the mathematical and statistical underpinnings of MLE, see Hastie et al (2009). MLE is a common approach in biological anthropology and can be used across the discipline including age estimation techniques (Boldsen et al, 2002; Getz, 2020; Konigsberg, 2015; Milner & Boldsen, 2012).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The numbers represent the MLE age estimate and the ±2SD within-plus-between tooth variance age estimates probability distribution (a distribution of estimated ages). mation techniques(Boldsen et al, 2002;Getz, 2020;Konigsberg, 2015;Milner & Boldsen, 2012) Kamnikar et al (2018). adjust the numerical parameters (the median ages of attainment on the logarithmic scale) based on a modern reference sample and these values are used to estimate the ageat-death across both study sites using Shackelford et al's method.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting error in the estimation of skeletal growth profiles from past populations: An example demonstrating skeletal growth in historic African American communities

Herrmann

2021

American Journal of Biological Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The study of growth in the past is a critical component of bioarcheological analyses. However, our understanding of growth in the past is subject to a number of methodological challenges. This study aims to model the skeletal growth of past populations by considering the challenges associated with the data collection process and the challenges associated with the age estimation procedures. Materials and methods:We use skeletal remains from two historic African American cemeteries in the American South to model femoral diaphyseal length-for-age. We estimate the age of each individual using dental development techniques and present growth curves as both a product of the maximum likelihood (MLE) age estimate and the estimated posterior age distribution. Growth was compared against a reference sample from the University of Colorado Child Research Council Study. Results:The results of our analyses showed that femoral diaphyseal length in two historic African American communities is small-for-estimated age as compared to a modern reference sample. However, the magnitude and characterization of this difference is variable when taking into account the broader posterior age distribution.Discussion: Both samples may be small-for-age due to physiological stress associated with racism, inequality, and the compounding effects of early urbanization. However, the interpretation of growth in the past is muddled when considering the relationship between the study sample and the reference sample, when accounting for uncertainty in the age estimation procedure, and the error-inducing steps taken during the data collection process. Future interpretation of skeletal growth in the past must include a full account of the possible sources of error in order to present an accurate representation of growth.

show abstract

The use of transition analysis in skeletal age estimation

Cited by 27 publications

References 41 publications

A comparison of subadult skeletal and dental development based on living and deceased samples

A comparison of subadult skeletal and dental development based on living and deceased samples

The effectiveness of skeletal age‐estimation in the reconstruction of population survivorship in post‐medieval Dublin

Interpreting error in the estimation of skeletal growth profiles from past populations: An example demonstrating skeletal growth in historic African American communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About