Anat Cell Biol.  2025 Mar;58(1):93-98. 10.5115/acb.24.235.

Hip joint and age relationship in Thai population by image processing technique

• Krudtong S
• Theera-Umpon N
• Jarupoom P
• Prasitwattanaseree S
• Sinthubua A
• Mahakkanukrauh P

• KMID: 2565960
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5115/acb.24.235

Abstract

Bone age is a critical factor in personal identification, with the hip joint—encompassing the acetabulum and femoral head—commonly used in age estimation. Age assessments rely on factors such as bone porosity and morphological characteristics. These are currently conducted by experts and their conclusions can vary. The logistical challenge of transporting physical bones complicates the process. The increasing use of image processing techniques in the medical field provides a more efficient and convenient alternative. This study used image processing methods to analyze area ratios and percent porosity of the acetabulum and femoral head, with a statistical evaluation of the relationship between these parameters and age at a 90% confidence level (α=0.10). The dataset comprised images from 167 skeletons including 59 females aged 30 to 88 and 108 males aged 28 to 97. The analysis revealed a significant relationship between percent porosity and age in males, both in the acetabulum and femoral head, with P-values below 0.10 but this relationship was not observed in females. A significant relationship between area ratio and age was found in the femoral head region for both genders but not in the acetabulum. The accuracy and comparability of the results were enhanced by applying a standardized image processing protocol.

Keyword

Acetabulum; Femur head; Porosity; Analysis of variance

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Hip joint. Acetabulum and acetabular fossa (A), femoral head and fovea capitis (B).

• 

  Fig. 2 Color image (left), grayscale image (right) and grayscale variation.

• 

  Fig. 3 Actual acetabular fossa image (A), histogram (B).

• 

  Fig. 4 Percent porosity and age for the left acetabulum in males.

• 

  Fig. 5 Area ratio and age for the right femoral head in females.

Reference

References

1. Evison M. Fraser J, Williams R, editors. Forensic anthropology and human identification from the skeleton. Handbook of forensic science. Willan;2009. p. 84–112.

2. Lovejoy CO, Meindl RS, Mensforth RP, Barton TJ. 1985; Multifactorial determination of skeletal age at death: a method and blind tests of its accuracy. Am J Phys Anthropol. 68:1–14. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330680102. PMID: 4061595.

3. Schmitt A, Murail P, Cunha E, Rougé D. 2002; Variability of the pattern of aging on the human skeleton: evidence from bone indicators and implications on age at death estimation. J Forensic Sci. 47:1203–9. DOI: 10.1520/JFS15551J. PMID: 12455640.

4. Li Y, Huang Z, Dong X, Liang W, Xue H, Zhang L, Zhang Y, Deng Z. 2019; Forensic age estimation for pelvic X-ray images using deep learning. Eur Radiol. 29:2322–9. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5791-6. PMID: 30402703.

5. Rissech C, Estabrook GF, Cunha E, Malgosa A. 2006; Using the acetabulum to estimate age at death of adult males. J Forensic Sci. 51:213–29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00060.x. PMID: 16566753.

6. White TD, Black MT, Folkens PA. Human osteology. 3rd ed. Elsevier;2012.

7. Calce SE, Rogers TL. 2011; Evaluation of age estimation technique: testing traits of the acetabulum to estimate age at death in adult males. J Forensic Sci. 56:302–11. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01700.x. PMID: 21306380.

8. Calce SE. 2012; A new method to estimate adult age-at-death using the acetabulum. Am J Phys Anthropol. 148:11–23. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22026. PMID: 22331613.

9. Khomkham P, Chotecharnont W, Srinuan P, Suriyasathaporn J, Srisaikaew P, Inchai C, Mann R, Mahakkanukrauh P. 2017; Association between age and acetabulum morphological changes in dry bones in the Thai population. Biom Sci Clin Med. 56:21–8.

10. San-Millán M, Rissech C, Turbón D. 2017; Shape variability of the adult human acetabulum and acetabular fossa related to sex and age by geometric morphometrics. Implications for adult age estimation. Forensic Sci Int. 272:50–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.01.005. PMID: 28113134.

11. Venara A, Martrille L, Godin M, Kerdat C, Deguette C, Chapard D, Rouge-Maillart C. 2013; Estimation of skeletal age at death in adults using the acetabulum and the auricular surface - an application on the Terry Collection. J Leg Med. 4:189–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.medleg.2013.08.002.

12. Acar N, Karaarslan A, Karakasli A, Erduran M. 2017; Femoral head fovea capitis variant configurations and age related changes- a radiological study. IJ Radiol. 14:e41130. DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.41130.

13. Bertsatos A, Chovalopoulou ME, Giannaki K, Valakos E. 2018; Morphological variation of the femoral head fovea capitis. Eur J Anat. 22:397–402.

14. Sundari RK, Damaraju PK, Gudepu P, Mekala L, Chandrashekhar EL. 2021; Age related anatomical changes in articular cartilage of femoral head in buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). J Anim Res. 11:415–20. DOI: 10.30954/2277-940X.03.2021.11.

15. Whitmarsh T, Otake Y, Uemura K, Takao M, Sugano N, Sato Y. 2019; A cross-sectional study on the age-related cortical and trabecular bone changes at the femoral head in elderly female hip fracture patients. Sci Rep. 9:305. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-36299-y. PMID: 30670734. PMCID: PMC6343024.

16. Benazzi S, Maestri C, Parisini S, Vecchi F, Gruppioni G. 2009; Sex assessment from the sacral base by means of image processing. J Forensic Sci. 54:249–54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00947.x. PMID: 19207288.

17. Cieszko M, Szczepański Z, Gadzała P. 2015; Determination of bone porosity based on histograms of 3D μCT images. J Mater Sci. 50:948–59. DOI: 10.1007/s10853-014-8654-9.

18. Rajagopalan S, Yaszemski MJ, Robb RA. Evaluation of thresholding techniques for segmenting scaffold images in tissue engineering. Paper presented at: Medical Imaging 2004: Image Processing. 2004 Feb 14-19; San Diego, CA, USA. DOI: 10.1117/12.535927.

19. Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH. 1994; Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains. Paper presented at: Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History. Fayetteville, AR, USA.

20. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE. Digital image processing. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall;2002.

21. Otsu N. 1979; A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man and Cybernetics. 9:62–6. DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076.

22. Rosenfeld A, De La Torre P. Histogram concavity analysis as an aid in threshold selection. IEEE Trans Syst Man and Cybernetics. 1983; SMC-13:231–5. DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.1983.6313118.

23. Pal AK, Garia S, Ravi K, Nair AM. 2018; Porosity estimation by digital image analysis. ONGC Bull. 53:59–72.

24. Martin III WD, Putman BJ, Kaye NB. 2013; Using image analysis to measure the porosity distribution of a porous pavement. Constr Build Mater. 48:210–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.093.

25. Daniel WW. Biostatistics : basic concepts and methodology for the health sciences. 9th ed. Wiley;2010.

26. Navidi WC. Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education;2008.