Anat Cell Biol.  2017 Sep;50(3):180-186. 10.5115/acb.2017.50.3.180.

Sex determination using humeral dimensions in a sample from KwaZulu-Natal: an osteometric study

• Ogedengbe
• Ajayi SA
• Komolafe O
• Zaw AK
• Naidu EC
• Okpara Azu O

• KMID: 2390479
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2017.50.3.180

Abstract

The morphological characteristics of the humeral bone has been investigated in recent times with studies showing varying degrees of sexual dimorphism. Osteologists and forensic scientists have shown that sex determination methods based on skeletal measurements are population specific, and these population-specific variations are present in many body dimensions. The present study aims to establish sex identification using osteometric standards for the humerus in a contemporary KwaZulu-Natal population. A total of 11 parameters were measured in a sample of n=211 humeri (males, 113; females, 98) from the osteological collection in the Discipline of Clinical Anatomy, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. The difference in means for nearly all variables were found to be significantly higher in males compared to females (P<0.01) with the most effective single parameter for predicting sex being the vertical head diameter having an accuracy of 82.5%. Stepwise discriminant analysis increased the overall accuracy rate to 87.7% when all measurements were jointly applied. We conclude that the humerus is an important bone which can be reliably used for sex determination based on standard metric methods despite minor tribal or ancestral differences amongst an otherwise homogenous population.

Keyword

Sex determination; Osteometry standards; Humerus; Ancestral differences

MeSH Terms

Female
Head
Humans
Humerus
Male
South Africa

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Posterior and mediolateral views of the left humerus showing the parameters used. VDH, vertical head diameter; UEB, upper epiphyseal breadth; TDUS, transverse diameter at the upper half of the shaft; TDMS, transverse diameter at the middle of the shaft; TDLS, transverse diameter at the lower half of shaft; EB, epicondylar breadth; ML, maximum length; CH, circumference of the head; USC, upper shaft circumference; MSC, mid-shaft circumference; LSC, lower shaft circumference.

Reference

1. Kumaran MS, Bastia BK, Kumar L, Patel SH. Correlation between fingerprint and lip print pattern in Gujarati population. Med Legal Update. 2017; 17:217–221.

2. Kamenov GD, Curtis JH. Using carbon, oxygen, strontium, and lead isotopes in modern human teeth for forensic investigations: a critical overview based on data from Bulgaria. J Forensic Sci. 2017 Feb 23 [Epub]. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13462.

3. Kranioti EF, Michalodimitrakis M. Sexual dimorphism of the humerus in contemporary Cretans: a population-specific study and a review of the literature. J Forensic Sci. 2009; 54:996–1000.

4. Gonçalves D, Thompson TJ, Cunha E. Sexual dimorphism of the lateral angle of the internal auditory canal and its potential for sex estimation of burned human skeletal remains. Int J Legal Med. 2015; 129:1183–1186.

5. Krüger GC, L'Abbé EN, Stull KE, Kenyhercz MW. Sexual dimorphism in cranial morphology among modern South Africans. Int J Legal Med. 2015; 129:869–875.

6. Krüger GC, L'Abbé EN, Stull KE. Sex estimation from the long bones of modern South Africans. Int J Legal Med. 2017; 131:275–285.

7. Stull KE, L'Abbé EN, Ousley SD. Subadult sex estimation from diaphyseal dimensions. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017; 163:64–74.

8. Kranioti EK, García-Donas JG, Almeida Prado PS, Kyriakou XP, Langstaff HC. Sexual dimorphism of the tibia in contemporary Greek-Cypriots and Cretans: forensic applications. Forensic Sci Int. 2017; 271:129.e1–129.e7.

9. Mall G, Hubig M, Büttner A, Kuznik J, Penning R, Graw M. Sex determination and estimation of stature from the long bones of the arm. Forensic Sci Int. 2001; 117:23–30.

10. Steyn M, Işcan MY. Osteometric variation in the humerus: sexual dimorphism in South Africans. Forensic Sci Int. 1999; 106:77–85.

11. Wu L. Sex discriminant analysis of long bones of upper limb. Acta Anthropol Sin. 1989; 8:231–239.

12. Holman DJ, Bennett KA. Determination of sex from arm bone measurements. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1991; 84:421–426.

13. Ross AH, Manneschi MJ. New identification criteria for the Chilean population: Estimation of sex and stature. Forensic Sci Int. 2011; 204:206.e1–206.e3.

14. Soni G, Dhall U, Chhabra S. Determination of sex from humerus: discriminant analysis. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2013; 45:147–152.

15. Choksi A, Babu GR, Dahiya MS. Study on the primary characteristics of identification: estimation of stature from palm length among the native Guajarati population. NHL J Med Sci. 2014; 3:13–17.

16. McCoy MW, Bolker BM, Osenberg CW, Miner BG, Vonesh JR. Size correction: comparing morphological traits among populations and environments. Oecologia. 2006; 148:547–554.

17. Charisi D, Eliopoulos C, Vanna V, Koilias CG, Manolis SK. Sexual dimorphism of the arm bones in a modern greek population. J Forensic Sci. 2011; 56:10–18.

18. Milner GR, Boldsen JL. Humeral and femoral head diameters in recent white American skeletons. J Forensic Sci. 2012; 57:35–40.

19. Uzün I, Işcan MY, Celbiş O. Forearm bones and sexual variation in Turkish population. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2011; 32:355–358.

20. De Villiers H. The skull of the South African Negro: a biometrical and morphological study. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press;1968.

21. de Beer Kaufman P. Variation in the number of presacral vertebrae in Bantu-speaking South African Negroes. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1974; 40:369–374.

22. Lundy JK. Selected aspects of metrical and morphological infracranial skeletal variation in the South African Negro [dissertation]. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand;1983.

23. Franklin D, O'Higgins P, Oxnard CE. Sexual dimorphism in the mandible of indigenous South Africans: a geometric morphometric approach. S Afr J Sci. 2008; 104:101–106.

24. Martin R, Saller K. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie in systematischer Darstellung, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der anthropologischen Methoden. Stuttgart: G. Fischer;1959.

25. Bass WM. Human osteology: a laboratory and field manual of the human skeleton. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society;1971.

26. Devi R, Thakar MK, Nath S. Estimation of humeral length from its fragmentary dimensions. Hum Biol Rev. 2014; 3:15–24.

27. Saini V, Srivastava R, Rai RK, Shamal SN, Singh TB, Tripathi SK. Mandibular ramus: an indicator for sex in fragmentary mandible. J Forensic Sci. 2011; 56:Suppl 1. S13–S16.

28. Wankhede KP, Bardale RV, Chaudhari GR, Kamdi NY. Determination of sex by discriminant function analysis of mandibles from a Central Indian population. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2015; 7:37–43.

29. Saini V, Srivastava R, Rai RK, Shamal SN, Singh TB, Tripathi SK. An osteometric study of northern Indian populations for sexual dimorphism in craniofacial region. J Forensic Sci. 2011; 56:700–705.

30. Mahakkanukrauh P, Sinthubua A, Prasitwattanaseree S, Ruengdit S, Singsuwan P, Praneatpolgrang S, Duangto P. Craniometric study for sex determination in a Thai population. Anat Cell Biol. 2015; 48:275–283.

31. Manchanda AS, Narang RS, Kahlon SS, Singh B. Diagonal tooth measurements in sex assessment: a study on North Indian population. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2015; 7:126–131.

32. Işcan MY, Loth SR, King CA, Shihai D, Yoshino M. Sexual dimorphism in the humerus: a comparative analysis of Chinese, Japanese and Thais. Forensic Sci Int. 1998; 98:17–29.

33. Lee JH, Kim YS, Lee UY, Park DK, Jeong YG, Lee NS, Han SY, Kim KY, Han SH. Sex determination using upper limb bones in Korean populations. Anat Cell Biol. 2014; 47:196–201.

34. Ríos Frutos L. Metric determination of sex from the humerus in a Guatemalan forensic sample. Forensic Sci Int. 2005; 147:153–157.

35. Patil G, Kolagi S, Ramadurg U. Sexual dimorphism in the humerus: south Indians. J Clin Diagn Res. 2011; 5:538–541.

36. Shehri FA, Soliman KE. Determination of sex from radiographic measurements of the humerus by discriminant function analysis in Saudi population, Qassim region, KSA. Forensic Sci Int. 2015; 253:138.

37. Soni G, Dhall U, Chhabra S. Determination of sex from femur: discriminant analysis. J Anat Soc India. 2010; 59:216–221.

38. Aboul-Hagag KE, Mohamed SA, Hilal MA, Mohamed EA. Determination of sex from hand dimensions and index/ring finger length ratio in Upper Egyptians. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2011; 1:80–86.

39. Ali DM, Elbaky FA. Sex identification and reconstruction of length of humerus from its fragments: an Egyptian study. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2016; 6:48–55.