In the present study a software tool for craniometric ancestry estimation, AncesTrees, was evaluated in an identified Brazilian skeletal sample with known self-reported ancestry. Twenty-three craniometric measures were obtained from each skull and analyzed using AncesTrees software, with two classification strategies—tournamentForest and ancestralForest algorithm. The tournamentForest (53.54%) and ancestralForest algorithms with three ancestry groups (50.96%) were more accurate to classify Europeans, while the ancestralForest algorithm with six (50.00%) and two (67.64%) groups were more accurate to estimate the ancestry of African descents. Admixed ancestry specimens were classified predominantly as European descent. The use of the ancestralForest algorithm considering only European and African origin (58.42%) was the most accurate setup for ancestry estimation in Brazilian skulls. Supervised classification algorithms and tools such as the AncesTrees work based on data analysis and pattern matching, and there is no Brazilian sample in its database, the software showed a low accuracy Brazilian samples. The incorporation of representative craniometric data obtained from Brazilian skulls into the software database may significantly increase the accuracy of ancestry estimates.
References
[1]
Alves, R. V, Garcia, S. J., Marques, A., & Wasterlain, S. N. (2016). Osteological Analysis of a Skeleton with Intentional Dental Modifications, Exhumed from Largo do Carmo (17th-18th Centuries), Lisbon. Antropologia Portuguesa, 32/33, 61-75.
[2]
Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5-32.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
[3]
Carvalho-Silva, D. R., Santos, F. R., Rocha, J., & Pena, S. D. J. (2001). The Phylogeography of Brazilian Y-Chromosome Lineages. American Journal of Human Genetics, 68, 281-286. https://doi.org/10.1086/316931
[4]
Cunha, E. (2019). Devolvendo a identidade: A antropologia forense no Brasil. Ciência e Cultura, 71, 30-34. https://doi.org/10.21800/2317-66602019000200011
[5]
Cunha, E., & Ubelaker, D. H. (2020). Evaluation of Ancestry from Human Skeletal Remains: A Concise Review. Forensic Sciences Research, 5, 89-97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2019.1697060
[6]
Cunha, E., Lopez-Capp, T. T., Inojosa, R., Marques, S. R., Moraes, L. O. C., Liberti, E., Machado, C. E. P., de Paiva, L. A. S., Francesquini Jr., L., Daruge Jr., E., Almeida Jr., E., & Soriano, E. (2018). The Brazilian Identified Human Osteological Collections. Forensic Science International, 289, 449.e1-449.e6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.040
[7]
Cuzzullin, M. C., Curate, F., Freire, A. R., Costa, S. T., Prado, F. B., Daruge Junior, E., Cunha, E., & Rossi, A. C. (2020). Validation of Anthropological Measures of the Human Femur for Sex Estimation in Brazilians. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2020.1729411
[8]
d’Oliveira Coelho, J., Curate, F., & Navega, D. (2020). Osteomics: Decision Support Systems for Forensic Anthropologists. In Z. Obertová, A. Stewart, & C. Cattaneo (Eds.), Statistics and Probability in Forensic Anthropology (pp. 259-273). Waltham, Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815764-0.00005-8
[9]
de Carvalho, M. V. D., Lira, V. F., do Nascimento, E. A., Torres Kobayashi, S. B., de Araújo, L. F., de Almeida, A. C., Porto Petraki, G. G., Cunha, E., & Soriano, E. P. (2020). New Acquisitions of a Contemporary Brazilian Identified Skeletal Collection. Forensic Science International: Reports, 2, Article ID: 100050.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir.2019.100050
[10]
Grivas, C. R., & Komar, D. A. (2008). Kumho, Daubert, and the Nature of Scientific Inquiry: Implications for Forensic Anthropology. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53, 771-776. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00771.x
[11]
Howells, W. W. (1973). Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Human Populations. Cambridge, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
[12]
Howells, W. W. (1989). Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo. Cambridge, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
[13]
Howells, W. W. (1994). Who’s Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurements. Cambridge, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.
[14]
Jacometti, V. (2018). Estimativa da ancestralidade em Antropologia Forense por meio do software “AncesTrees” em medidas cranianas de uma amostra brasileira. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo.
[15]
Kranioti, E. F., Garcia-Donas, J. G., Karell, M. A., Cravo, L., Ekizoglu, O., Apostol, M., & Cunha, E. (2019). Metric Variation of the Tibia in the Mediterranean: Implications in Forensic Identification. Forensic Science International, 299, 223-228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.03.044
[16]
Liebenberg, L., Krüger, G. C., L’Abbé, E. N., & Stull, K. E. (2019). Postcraniometric Sex and Ancestry Estimation in South Africa: A Validation Study. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 133, 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1865-x
[17]
Lynch, J., & Stephan, C. (2018). Computational Tools in Forensic Anthropology: The Value of Open-Source Licensing as a Standard. Forensic Anthropology, 1, 228-243.
https://doi.org/10.5744/fa.2018.0025
[18]
Navega, D., Coelho, C., Vicente, R., Ferreira, M. T., Wasterlain, S., & Cunha, E. (2015). AncesTrees: Ancestry Estimation with Randomized Decision Trees. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 129, 1145-1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-014-1050-9
[19]
Ousley, S., & Jantz, R. (2013). Fordisc 3: Third Generation of Computer-Aided Forensic Anthropology. Rechtsmedizin, 23, 97-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00194-013-0874-9
[20]
Petruccelli, J. L., & Saboia, A. L. (2013). Características étnico-raciais da população: classificações e identidades (Issue 2). Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE).
[21]
Skalic, C. (2018). A Critical Approach to Ancestry in Forensic Anthropology: an Assessment of Fordisc 3.1 and AncesTrees. Windsor: University of Windsor.
[22]
Slice, D. E., & Ross, A. H. (2009). Geometric Morphometrics Classification of Crania for Forensic Scientists. No. 2018-05-27. http://www.3d-id.org
[23]
Tinoco, R. L. R., Lima, L. N. C., Delwing, F., Francesquini, L., & Daruge, E. (2016). Dental anthropology of a Brazilian sample: Frequency of Nonmetric Traits. Forensic Science International, 258, 102.e1-102.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.10.019
Urbanová, P., Ross, A. H., Jurda, M., & Nogueira, M. I. (2014). Testing the Reliability of Software Tools in Sex and Ancestry Estimation in a Multi-Ancestral Brazilian Sample. Legal Medicine, 16, 264-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2014.06.002
[26]
Wright, R. V. S. (1992). Correlation between Cranial form and Geography in Homo sapiens: CRANID—A Computer Program for Forensic and Other Applications. Archaeology in Oceania, 27, 128-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1834-4453.1992.tb00296.x
[27]
Zupanič Pajnič, I., Petaros, A., Balažic, J., & Geršak, K. (2016). Searching for the Mother Missed since the Second World War. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 44, 138-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2016.10.015
