Stature and Build K Krishan, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India T Kanchan, Kasturba Medical College (affiliated to Manipal University), Mangalore, Karnataka, India ã 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Stature and body build are quantitative measures of physique that are indicative of individuals’ physical growth and development, and reflect the health, nutrition, and genetics of a population. Stature is the linear dimension of the skull, vertebral column, pelvis, and bones of the lower limbs. Estimation of stature is fundamental to the evaluation of skeletal remains, and is therefore an important aspect of forensic identification. Stature – along with age, sex, and ethnicity – is one of the ‘Big Four’ identifying factors in forensic anthropology. This baseline biological information, known as the biological profile, helps forensic scientists identify victims by narrowing down the pool of possible victim matches. Age, sex, and ethnicity should be taken into account when estimating stature in forensic examinations. Stature estimation is a major domain of medicolegal investigation in establishing the biological profile of unknown, fragmentary, and mutilated remains. Body build is a measure of overall body size of an individual, and includes both stature and body mass. Individuals’ stature is influenced by genetic and environmental factors such as health, disease, nutrition, and physical activity. Physical activity, in addition to good health and proper nutrition, encourages bone growth and development. The extent of physical activity during the growth period determines whether an individuals’ genetic potential for stature is achieved. The body proportions of different ethnic groups may also vary because of selective adaptation to different climate zones characteristic of each endogamous group. It is therefore desirable to derive stature estimation formulae for different ethnic groups. This is difficult, however, because of the practical difficulties in deriving these formulae for each ethnic and caste group, particularly in countries such as India and many African countries, where hundreds of such groups exist. Because of this, researchers’ opinions on the need to derive regression models for each ethnic group are divided. The issue, however, is simplified in regions inhabited by homogeneous population groups where a single regression formula represents the region.
Measures of Body Build and Body Size Estimation of body build and body size has received much less attention than stature estimation in forensic anthropology, but is nonetheless important in the evaluation of skeletal remains. Among scientists, it is generally agreed that the postcranial features have a more direct relationship to overall body size than cranial dimensions, and can therefore produce the most accurate estimates of body mass. Two methods can be used to estimate body mass from postcranial skeletal remains: mechanical method and morphometric method. Mechanical
Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, Second Edition
method relies on the functional association between weightbearing skeletal elements and body mass. Mechanical methods may employ articular surface dimensions or use diaphyseal breadths and cross-sectional dimensions of the bones for the estimation of body mass. Articular surface dimensions are less influenced by the differences in the activity level or muscular loadings during life than diaphyseal dimensions. Morphometric methods of estimating body mass reconstruct body size and/or shape from the available bones. Morphometric methods for reconstructing body mass based on stature estimation alone have been developed by researchers. On the basis of a worldwide sampling of modern humans of diverse body shape, Ruff derived a morphometric method – which is a combination of stature and body breadth (bi-iliac or maximum pelvic breadth) – that provides relatively accurate estimates of body mass. According to Ruff, articular surface dimensions are less influenced by differences in activity levels and muscular loadings during life when compared to diaphyseal dimensions and thus are more important. In addition, attempts have also been made to estimate body mass from metatarsal dimensions, pelvic bi-iliac breadth, long bone lengths, and femoral head diameter.
Methods of Stature Estimation The two basic methods of stature estimation in forensic examinations are the anatomical method and the mathematical method. The anatomical method of stature estimation was introduced by Fully. Fully’s method estimates individuals’ stature by summing the measurements of all the skeletal elements that contribute to the stature and adding a correction factor for the soft tissues. The skeletal elements essential for the estimation of stature are skull, vertebrae, femur, tibia, talus, and calcaneus. Lundy later devised a correction index to account for the thickness of the scalp, intervertebral disks, and soft tissue of the sole. A revision of Fully’s method by Raxter and colleagues is considered the best and the most accurate method of stature estimation in spite of its drawbacks: it is intricate, laborious, time consuming, and requires the essential components of the skeleton to be present. Fully’s original method does not provide explicit directions for taking all of the necessary measurements. Raxter and colleagues revised Fully’s anatomical method for reconstruction of stature by testing, then clarifying, the measurement procedures. Raxter et al. tested Fully’s process on 119 adult black and white male and female cadavers of known stature from the Terry Collection. The cadaveric statures were adjusted to living statures, according to the recommendations of Trotter and Gleser. Raxter and colleagues found that statures derived using the Fully’s original technique underestimated the living stature by an average of about 2.4 cm and that the correction factors applied by Fully to convert summed
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382165-2.00010-6
49
50
Anthropology/Odontology | Stature and Build
skeletal height to living stature was too small. Fully’s technique did not take into consideration the size of cartilage and other soft tissues that might affect proper spacing. Hence, Raxter and colleagues derived new formulae to calculate living stature from skeletal height. The mathematical method of stature estimation is based on the standard of deriving a formula that can be applied directly to estimate stature from a given bone or body part in forensic examinations. Estimation of stature using mathematical formulae is based on the principle of a definite biological relationship that exists between stature and the body parts, especially those which contribute directly to individuals’ stature such as the head, trunk, vertebral column, pelvis, lower extremity, and feet. The well-defined relationship between these parts allows a forensic scientist to estimate stature from various bones and body parts. The mathematical method of stature estimation includes two submethods: the multiplication method and the regression analysis method. Many earlier studies have utilized either or both of these methods of stature estimation; however, studies have shown that the regression method of stature estimation is more accurate and reliable than the multiplication factor method. The studies on the extent of variability in estimated and actual stature using both these submethods, however, are limited in literature. Anatomical method is considered advantageous over the mathematical method of stature estimation as the former gives more reliable stature estimates. However, all bones required for stature estimation using Fully’s method may not be available in routine forensic practice, thus limiting its utility. Therefore, the mathematical method remains a more popularly used method of stature estimation in forensic and medicolegal investigations.
Stature Estimation from Long Bones Regression analysis is based on the linear relationship between dimensions of bones, body parts, and stature. Various regression formulae have been derived for estimation of stature from long bones in different population groups worldwide (Table 1). Trotter and Gleser conducted a major on stature estimation using humerus, radius, ulna, femur, tibia, and fibula bones from black and white Americans. Samples were taken from the Terry collection and from remains of World Table 1
War II American military personnel. Trotter and Gleser used these measurements to formulate sex- and population-specific regression equations. Later, they revised these formulae using a large number of skeletons of black and white American service members who were killed between 1950 and 1953 while serving in the Korean War. They also devised regression formulae for Americans of Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Asian origin. Following these major studies on stature estimation, a variety of authors worked in different regions of the world to generate standards for stature estimation. Additional regression formulae were developed by Allbrook, for British and East Africans, in 1961; by Olivier, for French men and women, in 1963; by Yunghao and colleagues, for Chinese, in 1979; and by C˙erny´ and Komenda, for the Czechs, in 1982. Dupertuis and Hadden later provided bone/stature ratios and regression formulae for Americans from femur, tibia, humerus, and radius measurements using materials from the Hamann–Todd Collection. They also recommended that a combination of two or more bones be used to provide better estimations of stature. Jantz modified the Trotter and Gleser formulae in view of the secular trends in modern population. Jantz tested the Trotter and Gleser formulae for femur and tibia using the data from the Forensic Data Bank at the University of Tennessee, and observed that stature estimates differed from one another by about 3 cm. Jantz and his colleagues observed that Trotter and Gleser’s study inappropriately measured tibia length, resulting in tibia measurements that were 10–12 mm shorter than the actual measurements. These faulty measurements were responsible for the overestimation of stature (averaging 2.5–3.0 cm) when the regression formulae were used on the appropriately measured tibia. Ross and Konigsberg provided stature estimation formulae for Balkans by measuring long bones from a sample of 177 Eastern European males, including Bosnian and Croatian victims of war. They compared the estimated stature from the East European sample with a reference sample of 545 white American males – Trotter and Gleser’s data from World War II – and observed that Trotter and Gleser’s formulae systematically underestimated the stature of Balkans. Ross and Konigsberg concluded that the stature prediction formulae developed for white Americans may be inappropriate for European population because Eastern Europeans are typically taller than white Americans.
Regression models derived for stature (cm) estimation from various bones in different populations
Population/origin
Males
Females
Caucasoids (cm) (Trotter and Gleser) Negroids (cm) (Trotter and Gleser) Mongoloids (cm) (Trotter and Gleser) Chileans (cm) (Ross and Manneschi) Chileans (cm) (Ross and Manneschi) South Indians (cm) (Nagesh and Pradeep Kumar) Portuguese population (mm) (Cordeiro and coworkers) South Africans Whites (cm) (Bidmos) South Africans Blacks (cm) (Bidmos and Asala) Portuguese population (cm) (De Mendonca) Portuguese population (cm) (De Mendonca) Thai population (cm) (Mahakkanukrauh and coworkers) Thai population (cm) (Mahakkanukrauh and coworkers)
2.38 Femur length þ 61.41 3.27 2.11 Femur length þ 70.35 3.94 2.15 Femur length þ 72.57 3.80 2.53 Humerus length þ 820.36 36.7 2.26 Tibia length þ 356.48 31.0 1.882 Vertebral length þ 60.699 4.38 11.678 First metatarsal þ 963.949 57.0 0.87 Calcaneus length þ 84.65 4.56 0.63 Calcaneus length þ 100.87 5.34 0.3269 Humerus length þ 59.41 8.44 0.3065 Femur length þ 64.26 7.70 2.722 Femur length þ 45.534 5.06 3.015 Tibia length þ 52.964 5.15
2.47 Femur length þ 54.10 3.72 2.28 Femur length þ 59.76 3.41 – 1.91 Humerus length þ 989.28 41.5 1.41 Tibia length þ 1026.97 41.1 1.899 Vertebral length þ 55.361 4.16 12.006 First metatarsal þ 919.146 43.5 1.25 Calcaneus length þ 52.51 4.59 0.82 Calcaneus length þ 82.49 4.98 0.2663 Humerus length þ 47.18 6.90 10.2428 Femur length þ 55.63 5.92 2.778 Femur length þ 40.602 5.21 2.620 Tibia length þ 63.089 5.94
Anthropology/Odontology | Stature and Build
Auerbach and Ruff calculated regression formulae for indigenous North Americans using femur and tibia lengths. They used 967 skeletons from 75 archeological sites and estimated stature using revised Fully anatomical technique. After comparing the new stature estimation equations with previously available equations using several archeological test samples, they observed that the new stature estimation equations were more precise than those previously available, and recommended the use of derived formulae throughout most of the North America.
Stature Estimation from Percutaneous Bone Measurements and Body Parts
specific position of the subject must be taken into consideration. Size standards of the positives are obtained and landmarks are located on the positives and precise measurements are taken. Researchers have made use of various radiographic methods, such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computed radiography, and digital radiography, for this purpose.
•
• •
The identification of mutilated and isolated body remains has remained a challenging task for forensic scientists. Body parts such as the head, trunk, upper and lower limbs, and feet and hands display a definite biological relationship with an individuals’ stature. While forensic anthropologists typically estimate stature from length of the bones, they also examine human remains at mass fatality sites where analysis of the fleshed bodies or body parts is more common. For stature estimation at mass disaster sites where only parts of bodies or mutilated remains are found, the presence of soft tissue on the human remains would usually necessitate dissection to expose skeletal elements to derive metric data for stature estimation; however, it is possible to estimate stature from various parts of the body using anthropometric techniques. In such a scenario, standard anthropometric soft tissue or percutaneous measurements can be used instead of skeletal measurements. Stature estimates derived from anthropometric data are reasonably accurate and eliminate the necessity for dissection when working with fleshed body portions. Adams and Herrmann compared the results of skeletal measurements and the anthropometric measurements from two studies (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and U.S. Army Anthropometric Survey) and found that the U.S. Army Anthropometric Survey models were similar to the skeletal models. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey models, however, exhibited weaker correlation coefficients and higher standard errors for the same. Researchers have successfully estimated stature from measurements on percutaneous bones of living individuals as well as cadavers in different populations worldwide. This has allowed the development of regression formulae for estimation of stature from head, face, and upper extremity measurements in North Indian ethnic groups and the Turkish population; from hand dimensions in the Punjabi Indian, North Indian, South Indian, Mauritian, and Egyptian populations; and from lower extremity dimensions (including foot dimensions) in American, Turkish, North Indian, Mauritian, and Nigerian populations, as well as the Rajbanshis of North Bengal in India.
51
• •
• •
•
Munoz and colleagues estimated stature from radiographically determined lengths of the long bones in a Spanish population. They reported femur and tibia as the most accurate predictors of stature in the population. Patil and Mody devised regression formulae for estimation of stature from various measurements of lateral cephalograms in a central Indian population. Sarajlic and coworkers measured long bones from the X-rays obtained from the cadavers in a Bosnian population and derived regression formulae for stature estimation. Sagir successfully estimated stature from various measurements on radiographs of metacarpals in a Turkish population. Petrovecki and colleagues calculated relationship of stature with all the six long bone lengths measured from the radiographs of the cadavers in a Croatian population. Petrovecki and colleagues concluded that the best prediction of stature can be made from the humerus in females and the tibia in males. Fan and colleagues measured fibulae and tibiae of living Han subjects of China using computed radiographs and successfully derived regression formulae to estimate stature. Hasegawa and colleagues took measurements on radiographically determined lengths of femur, tibia, and humerus in living Japanese subjects and calculated multiple regression models for estimation of stature. Kieffer demonstrated the feasibility of creating bone lengths and stature databases of significant size for modern living human population from digital radiographic archives and medical records. He measured the lengths of tibia and fibula from the digital radiograph images and stature measurements were obtained from medical records. Kieffer observed that the bone lengths obtained from radiographic images were almost 3 cm longer than those obtained from skeletalized collections; consequently, the stature estimation formulae produce ranges up to 10 cm lower than the currently available formulae. Kieffer suggested that accuracy of stature estimation can be improved by making corrections for the small magnification produced by digital images.
Thus, estimating stature from the radiographic measurement of the length of the long bones of the upper and lower extremity seems to be a simple and practical approach to estimate stature in forensic practice.
Stature Estimation from Radiographically Determined Long Bone Length
Stature Estimation from Small Bones and Other Bones of the Body
Scientists have shown that radiographically determined bone lengths can provide stature estimates using regression formulae. While conducting the X-ray examination, however, the
Although stature estimation from long bones is more reliable and accurate than from any other bone or part of the body, in some cases, other bones need to be used for stature estimation.
52
Anthropology/Odontology | Stature and Build
A fair amount of accuracy has been achieved by researchers using foot bones such as calcaneum, talus, and metatarsal bones for stature estimation in various populations. Metacarpals have also been used effectively in stature estimation and regression equations have been derived. Similarly, the vertebral column and its parts, pelvic dimensions, scapular measurements, sternal measurements, and clavicle dimensions have been utilized for stature estimation in some population groups. Stature estimation from these bones is quite valuable when the long bones are not available for examination.
potential for stature. These factors account for the necessity of population-specific regression formulae, which were discussed previously. Allometric secular changes in black and white Americans has shown that stature formulae based on dated measurements – such as Trotter and Gleser’s nineteenthcentury samples from the Terry collection – are inappropriate for use in modern forensic cases. It is, therefore, recommended that the regression equations should be derived at opportune intervals to take account of secular trends in a population.
Estimation of Stature from Fragments of Bones
Factors Affecting Stature Estimation in Forensic Examinations and Making Population Standards and Databases
In a number of forensic and archeological cases, only bone fragments or parts of long bones are available for examination. In such cases, stature estimation from parts of the bone can help in identification of the victim. Studies have shown that stature can be estimated from fragmentary bones by either a direct method or an indirect method. Direct method involves estimation of stature directly from the individual measurements or combination of measurements of fragments of the bone. The indirect method involves the calculation of maximum length of the bone from the measurements of its fragments that is followed by stature estimation from the estimated maximum length of the long bone. Indirect method is considered more useful and accurate than the direct method of stature estimation from fragmentary bones. However, Bidmos has observed that the direct method of stature estimation is more accurate and reliable than the indirect method and is less complicated when the direct measurements are involved in stature estimation. Most of the studies on stature estimation from fragmentary remains have been conducted on femur fragments from various population groups. Chiba and Bidmos derived regression equations from fragments of tibia that allow estimation of fulllength tibia measurements and stature. These studies show that in the absence of intact long bones, the equations derived from the fragments of the bones can provide a reliable estimate of skeletal height and living stature.
Secular Change and Variation in Limb Proportions in Relation to Stature in Different Populations Secular change is the increase or decrease in size over a period of time in a population, and allometry is the proportional relationship of anatomical structures in humans and other biological organisms. Studies on secular change and allometry have observed differential limb proportionality between sexes and among populations, which could affect the accuracy of stature equations depending on the skeletal elements used to calculate such estimates. In other words, the long bone lengths and body proportions of one population do not necessarily correlate with the stature in another population. This may be attributed to the genetics and environmental factors – such as nutrition and disease – of a population, which result in variations in body and limb proportions among population groups. The environmental conditions appear to be the primary controlling factors in an individual achieving the fixed genetic
Factors such as aging, limb asymmetry, diurnal variations, gender, and measurement error can also affect the stature estimation of victims. The effect of aging on stature estimation is well known. Stature alters as an individual goes through the life cycle, increasing during youthful growth and development, leveling off for several decades after maturity, and decreasing in later adulthood. The effective loss of stature begins at about 40 years of age and continues rapidly thereafter. Thus, it is recommended that age group categorization of the subjects should be done for making stature estimation standards and databases in a population. Another factor that can affect stature estimation is the presence of limb asymmetry in individuals and a population as a whole. Limb asymmetry is considered as a general and natural phenomenon in the human body. Bilateral asymmetry in the human body exists because of genetic as well as environmental causes and is a good indicator of developmental stability in an organism. Thus, different formulae needs to be derived for estimation of stature from the right and left sides. While examining human remains, forensic anthropologists should take asymmetry into consideration and apply an appropriate formula for estimation of stature for that side of the body. Stature is subject to diurnal variations, and the time of the day when an individual’s stature is measured can affect the measurements. Individuals have maximum stature shortly after waking (whether from nighttime sleep or an afternoon nap), and are shorter later in the day due to the gradual compression of the intervertebral disks that occurs during walking, standing, and sitting. Taller and heavier individuals have a greater potential for diurnal variations than lighter or smaller persons. Significant diurnal variation is known to affect the stature database in forensic examinations. It is, therefore, recommended that individuals’ height be measured at a defined time in a day to avoid variations in stature that may affect the generated standards and formulae derived for estimation of stature. Technical or personal errors inherent in measuring stature of individuals or measuring bones can substantially affect stature estimation and, therefore, must be considered in forensic casework. Anthropometric measurements are taken using standardized instruments and techniques. Height measurements are typically taken with an anthropometer or a stadiometer; osteometric boards, Flower’s calipers, and sliding calipers are used to take measurements of long bones and skeletal material.
Anthropology/Odontology | Stature and Build
These measurement techniques must include calculations of measurement error in terms of inter- and intraobserver bias. A minimal error can affect the reliability and precision of analysis, leading to erroneous conclusions. The precision, reliability, and reproducibility of the measurements are essential. Individuals’ posture (such as a slouch, which may occur because of aging or ill health) or the effects of footwear may also substantially alter stature measurements. Gender also has an effect on stature estimation. It is customary to derive regression formulae separately for males and females because of statistically significant differences in stature and dimensions of male and female bodies. Estimation of sex thus becomes a critical requirement in applicability of sexspecific regression models in stature estimation. It may not always be possible to estimate sex with reasonable accuracy, and hence, there is a need to derive universal regression formulae for estimation of stature that can be applied in remains with unknown sex.
See also: Anthropology/Odontology: Aging the Dead and the Living; History of Forensic Anthropology; Identification of the Living; Personal Identification in Forensic Anthropology; Investigations: Recovery of Human Remains.
Further Reading Adams BJ and Herrmann NP (2009) Estimation of living stature from selected anthropometric (soft tissue) measurements: Applications for forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 54: 753–760. Auerbach BM and Ruff CB (2004) Human body mass estimation: A comparison of morphometric and mechanical methods. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125: 331–342. Auerbach BM and Ruff CB (2010) Stature estimation formulae for indigenous North American populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141: 190–207. Bidmos MA (2008) Estimation of stature using fragmentary femora in indigenous South Africans. International Journal of Legal Medicine 122: 293–299. Cattaneo C (2007) Forensic anthropology: Developments of a classical discipline in the new millennium. Forensic Science International 165: 185–193.
53
Fully G (1956) Une nouvelle me´thode de de´termination de la taille. Annales de Medecine Legale 35: 266–273. Groote ID and Humphrey LT (2011) Body mass and stature estimation based on the first metatarsal in humans. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 144: 625–632. Jantz RL (1992) Modification of the Trotter and Gleser female stature estimation formulae. Journal of Forensic Sciences 37: 1230–1235. Jantz RL, Hunt DR, and Meadows L (1995) The measure and mismeasure of the tibia: Implications for stature estimation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40: 758–761. Jantz RL and Ousley SD (1993–2005) FORDISC 1.0–3.0: Personal Computerized Forensic Discriminant Functions. Knoxville: Forensic Anthropology Center, The University of Tennessee. Jason DR and Taylor K (1995) Estimation of stature from the length of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar segments of the spine in American whites and blacks. Journal of Forensic Sciences 40: 59–62. Kanchan T, Menezes RG, Moudgil R, Kaur R, Kotian MS, and Garg RK (2010) Stature estimation from foot length using universal regression formula in a north Indian population. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55: 163–166. Kieffer CL (2010) Tibia and fibula stature formulae for modern female populations based on digital radiographic measurements. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55: 695–700. Klepinger LL (2001) Stature, maturation variation and secular trends in forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 46: 788–790. Krishan K (2008) Determination of stature from foot and its segments in a north Indian population. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 29: 297–303. Krishan K, Kanchan T, and DiMaggio JA (2010) A study of limb asymmetry and its effect on estimation of stature in forensic case work. Forensic Science International 200: 181 e1–5. Mun˜oz JI, Lin˜ares-Iglesias M, Sua´rez-Pen˜aranda JM, Mayo M, Migue´ns X, Rodrı´guezCalvo MS, and Concheiro L (2001) Stature estimation from radiographically determined long bone length in a Spanish population sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences 46: 363–366. Ousley SD (1995) Should we estimate biological or forensic stature? Journal of Forensic Sciences 40: 768–773. Raxter MH, Auerbach BM, and Ruff CB (2006) Revision of the fully technique for estimating statures. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130: 374–384. Ross AH and Konigsberg LW (2002) New formulae for estimating stature in the Balkans. Journal of Forensic Sciences 47: 165–167. Ruff C (2007) Body size prediction from juvenile skeletal remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133: 698–716. Trotter M and Gleser GC (1952) Estimation of stature from long bones of American Whites and Negroes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10: 463–514. Trotter M and Gleser GC (1958) A re-evaluation of estimation of stature based on measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16: 79–123. Wilson RJ, Herrmann NP, and Jantz LM (2010) Evaluation of stature estimation from the database for forensic anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55: 684–689.