Sex determination from skeletons is an important research subject in forensic medicine. Previous skeletal sex assessments are through subjective visual analysis by anthropologists or metric analysis of sexually dimorphic features. In this work, we present an automatic sex determination method for 3D digital skulls, in which a statistical shape model for skulls is constructed, which projects the high-dimensional skull data into a low-dimensional shape space, and Fisher discriminant analysis is used to classify skulls in the shape space. This method combines the advantages of metrical and morphological methods. It is easy to use without professional qualification and tedious manual measurement. With a group of Chinese skulls including 127 males and 81 females, we choose 92 males and 58 females to establish the discriminant model and validate the model with the other skulls. The correct rate is 95.7% and 91.4% for females and males, respectively. Leave-one-out test also shows that the method has a high accuracy. 1. Introduction Sex identification from skeletons is a vital work for a forensic anthropological analysis. Previous studies [1–4] indicate that pelvis is the most reliable indicator of sex assessment, and skull is the second one. However, not all forensic cases provide a complete skeleton due to breakage or postmortem destruction, while the skull can be well preserved in most cases since it is composed of hard tissue. So the skull is the most commonly used skeleton part in forensic anthropological analysis. Traditional skeletal sex assessments principally rely on visual assessments of sexually dimorphic traits. Rogers [5] achieves an accuracy of 89.1% for a historic skeletal collection by using visual morphological traits. By scoring the visual assessments of five cranial traits (glabella, mental, orbit, nuchal, and mastoid), Walker [6] achieves 90% accuracy for modern American skulls via a quadratic discriminant analysis model incorporating scores. According to Daubert [7] and Mohan [8] criteria, Williams and Rogers [9] assess 21 skull characteristics of 50 white European Americans (25 males and 25 females). For a characteristic, if the intraobserver error is no more than 10% and the accuracy is above 80% when it is used separately to identify the sex, the characteristic is defined as a high quality characteristic. They get six high quality characteristics like eyebrow, orbit, and so forth, and the accuracy reaches 94% by utilizing visual assessments of all these six characteristics. Visual assessments depend heavily on physical anthropologists’
References
[1]
W. M. Bass, Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual, Missouri Archaeological Society Columbia, 5th edition, 2005.
[2]
D. L. France, “Observation and metric analysis of sex in the skeleton,” in Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, K. J. Reichs, Ed., pp. 163–186, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill, USA, 1998.
[3]
R. B. Pickering and D. C. Bachman, The Use of Forensic Anthropology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 1997.
[4]
D. H. Ubelaker and C. G. Volk, “A test of the Phenice method for the estimation of sex,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 19–24, 2002.
[5]
T. L. Rogers, “Determining the sex of human remains through cranial morphology,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 493–500, 2005.
[6]
P. L. Walker, “Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 2008.
[7]
Regina vJ-LJ, S.C.R. File No. 26830, 2000.
[8]
United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 1993.
[9]
B. A. Williams and T. L. Rogers, “Evaluating the accuracy and precision of cranial morphological traits for sex determination,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 729–735, 2006.
[10]
W. M. Krogman and M. Y. Iscan, The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Ill, USA, 1986.
[11]
F. Ramsthaler, M. Kettner, A. Gehl, and M. A. Verhoff, “Digital forensic osteology: morphological sexing of skeletal remains using volume-rendered cranial CT scans,” Forensic Science International, vol. 195, no. 1–3, pp. 148–152, 2010.
[12]
T.-H. Hsiao, H.-P. Chang, and K.-M. Liu, “Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of lateral radiographic cephalometry,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 792–795, 1996.
[13]
T.-H. Hsiao, S.-M. Tsai, S.-T. Chou et al., “Sex determination using discriminant function analysis in children and adolescents: a lateral cephalometric study,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 155–160, 2010.
[14]
M. Inoue, T. Inoue, Y. Fushimi, and K. Okada, “Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of lateral cranial form,” Forensic Science International, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 109–117, 1992.
[15]
S. A. Veyre-Goulet, C. Mercier, O. Robin, and C. Guérin, “Recent human sexual dimorphism study using cephalometric plots on lateral teleradiography and discriminant function analysis,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 786–789, 2008.
[16]
M. K. Spradley and R. L. Jantz, “Sex estimation in forensic anthropology: skull versus postcranial elements,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 289–296, 2011.
[17]
R. L. Jantz and S. D. Ousley, FORDISC 3: Computerized Forensic Discriminate Functions, Version 3.0, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn, USA, 2005.
[18]
P. Guyomarc'h and J. Bruzek, “Accuracy and reliability in sex determination from skulls: a comparison of Fordisc 3.0 and the discriminant function analysis,” Forensic Science International, vol. 208, no. 1–3, pp. 180.e1–180.e6, 2011.
[19]
F. Ramsthaler, K. Kreutz, and M. A. Verhoff, “Accuracy of metric sex analysis of skeletal remains using Fordisc based on a recent skull collection,” International Journal of Legal Medicine, vol. 121, no. 6, pp. 477–482, 2007.
[20]
C. B. Li, “Study on sex difference of adult human skull in the northest china by stepwise discriminantanalysis,” Journal of China Medical University, vol. 1, no. 21, pp. 28–31, 1992.
[21]
W. Y. Shui, Research and application of craniofacial morphology [dissertation], Beijing Normal University, 2011.
[22]
F. Q. Duan, S. Yang, D. H. Huang, et al., “Craniofacial reconstruction based on multi-linear subspace analysis,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2013.
[23]
X.-H. Liu, Y. Sun, and Y. Wu, “Reduction of hyperspectral dimensions and construction of discriminating models for identifying wetland plant species,” Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 459–464, 2012 (Chinese).
[24]
Q. Q. Deng, M. Q. Zhou, W. Y. Shui, Z. Wu, Y. Ji, and R. Bai, “A novel skull registration based on global and local deformations for craniofacial reconstruction,” Forensic Science International, vol. 208, no. 1–3, pp. 95–102, 2011.
[25]
Y. Hu, F. Duan, B. Yin et al., “A hierarchical dense deformable model for 3D face reconstruction from skull,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 64, pp. 345–364, 2013.
[26]
Y. Hu, F. Duan, M. Zhou, et al., “Craniofacial reconstruction based on a hierarchical dense deformable model,” EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, vol. 2012, article 217, 14 pages, 2012.
[27]
P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-D shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 1992.
[28]
B. Sejrsen, N. Lynnerup, and M. Hejmadi, “An historical skull collection and its use in forensic odontology and anthropology,” Journal of Forensic Odonto-Stomatology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 40–44, 2005.