Jurnal 6

AGE ESTIMATION OF FETAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM
THE FORENSIC CONTEXT
By
JENNIFER ELLEN SANDERS
B.A., University of Montana, Missoula, 2003
B.A., University of Montana, Missoula, 2003
Thesis
presented in part of fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Arts
in Anthropology
The University of Montana
Missoula, MT
December 2009
Approved by:
Perry Brown, Associate Provost for Graduate Education
Graduate School
Ashley McKeown, PhD, Chair
Anthropology
Randall Skelton, PhD
Anthropology
Kathy Kupier, PhD
Sociology
Sanders, Jennifer, M.A., December 2009
Anthropology
Age Estimation of Fetal Skeletal Remains From the Forensic Context

Chairperson: Ashley McKeown, PhD
This study tested the efficacy of the traditional method (Fazekas and Kosa, 1978) of
aging fetal remains from the forensic context against ultrasound (Chevernak et al., 1998)
and radiographic (Sherwood et al., 2000) methods to determine which was most accurate.
Two data sets were used in this study. The first consisted of measurements from historic
(1902-1917) fetal remains of known age. The second consisted of measurements from
modern fetal remains of known age from the forensic context. Using these samples in the
different prediction models for aging fetal remains, the accuracy of each was determined.
ii
To Mom, Dad, Jeff, Jaymie, and Grandma

In Memory of Richard C. Atkins
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank my committee for all of their assistance and support
with this research. I would also like to thank my advisor Dr. Ashley McKeown. Dr.
McKeown has been an amazing resource throughout this endeavor and I cannot thank her
enough for all she has done. I also want to express my deepest gratitude to my family
and friends for supporting me through this process. They made this possible.
I would like to acknowledge several people for their help with the technical
aspects of this thesis. Their assistance and data contribution was invaluable. First, Dr.
Dave Hunt at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute for
providing measurements of the Lamb collection, Dr. Lee Meadows-Jantz at the
University of Tennessee-Knoxville for allowing me to measure their forensic fetal
collection and her assistance while I was there, and finally, Dr. Clyde Gibbs at the Office
of the Chief Medical Examiner in Chapel Hill, NC. for providing measurements from
forensic fetal remains.
iv
VITA
Jennifer Ellen Sanders was born in Missoula, MT on February 4th, 1980. She and
her brother Jeffery were raised in Lolo, MT by their parents Gordon and Diane Sanders.
Jennifer attended Big Sky High School in Missoula, MT from 1994-1998. Upon
graduation she enrolled at the University of Montana. In May 2003, Jennifer graduated
with a bachelors degree in Human Biology and a bachelors degree in Psychology.
Jennifer currently lives in Missoula and enjoys spending time with her family including
her newly adopted sister Jaymie.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Problem Statement and Thesis Objective
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Fetal Skeletal Development
Age Estimation
Problems with Fetal Age Estimation
1
2
4
4
8
15
III. METHODS AND MATERIALS
20
IV. RESULTS
Historical Data Set
Forensic Data Set
29
29
37
V. DISCUSSION
Historical Data Set
Forensic Data Set
Secular Change
46
46
48
52
VI. CONCLUSION
54
VII. REFERENCES
56
vi
List of Tables
Page
Table 1: Definitions of measurements taken.
21
Table 2: Example of measurements taken of individuals in the

23
William M. Bass III Donated Collection housed in the Department
of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Table 3: Regression formulae using the variable Femur Length (FL)
25
Table 4: Error and bias determination for an individual with a known

age of 28 weeks.
26
Table 5: R-square results from SPSS for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age
estimations on historical data set.
30
Table 6: ANOVA results for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age estimations
on historical data set.
30
Table 7: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the Fazekas 31

and Kosa (1978) formula on historical individuals by age in weeks.
Table 8: R-square results from SPSS for Chervenak et al. (1998) age
32
Table 9: ANOVA results for Chervenak et al. (1998) age estimations

33
Table 10: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the

Chervenak et al. (1998) formula on historical individuals
by age in weeks.
33
Table 11: R-square results from SPSS for Sherwood et al. (2000) age
35
Table 12: ANOVA results for Sherwood et al. (2000) age estimations
35

Sherwood et al. (2000) formula on historical individuals by age
in weeks.
36
Table 14: R-square results from SPSS for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age
estimations on modern forensic data set.
38
vii
Table 15: ANOVA results for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age estimations
on modern forensic data set.
38
Table 16: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the Fazekas 39
and Kosa (1978) formula on modern forensic individuals
by age in weeks.
Table 17: R-square results from SPSS for Chervenak et al. (1998) age
41
Table 18: ANOVA results for Chervenak et al. (1998) age estimations
on modern forensic data set. p 40
41

Chervenak et al. (1998) formula on modern forensic individuals
by age in weeks.
42
Table 20: R-square results from SPSS for Sherwood et al. (2000) age
43
Table 21: ANOVA results for Sherwood et al. (2000) age estimations
on modern forensic data set.
44

Sherwood et al. (2000) formula on modern forensic individuals
by age in weeks.
44
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Example of Femur Measurements.
22
Figure 2: Example of fetal leg bone diaphyses UTK 16-95D.
23
Figure 3: Comparison of estimated age using Fazekas and Kosa (1978)

to known age with linear regression applied.
30
Figure 4: Fazekas and Kosa (1978) Error and Bias on Historical Data Set. 31
Figure 5: Comparison of estimated age using Chervenak et al. (1998) to
known age with linear regression applied.
32
Figure 6: Chervenak et al. (1998) Error and Bias on Historical Data Set.
34
Figure 7: Comparison of estimated age using Sherwood et al. (2000) to

35
Figure 8: Sherwood et al. (2000) Error and Bias on Historical Data Set.
37
Figure 9: Comparison of estimated age using Fazekas and Kosa (1978)

to known age with linear regression applied.
38
Figure 10 : Fazekas and Kosa (1978) Error and Bias on Forensic

Data Set.
39
Figure 11: Comparison of estimated age using Chervenak et al. (1998) to 40

Figure 12: Chervenak et al. (1998) Error and Bias on Forensic Data Set.
42
Figure 13: Comparison of estimated age using Sherwood et al. (2000) to

43
Figure 14: Sherwood et al. (2000) Error and Bias on Forensic Data Set.
45
Figure 15: Comparison of the Historical Data Set and the Forensic
Data Set.
53
ix
INTRODUCTION
Unfortunately, in the forensic context there are cases involving fetal and neonatal
skeletal remains. Accurate age estimation of these remains can be very important to
medicolegal authorities, particularly as it is sometimes necessary to determine if these
skeletal remains are those of a full-term neonate or a pre-term fetus. Age estimation is
usually the primary characteristic for identification and is often the only means of
identification for fetuses and neonates since they do not usually have any other type of
identification with them (Hoffman, 1979; Scheuer et al., 1980; Weaver, 1998). Age
estimation can also play an important role in the prosecution of forensic cases.
According to Schueur (2002) determination of fetal age, specifically if the fetus reached
full-term, can have legal importance in forensic cases. Whether the individual was
liveborn or stillborn is significant to a forensic case. In cases of criminal abortion or
infanticide, the age of the fetus is integral to the prosecution (Fazekas and Kosa, 1978).
Today, forensic anthropologists use prediction models for age estimation based on
fetal skeletal samples from the early to mid-20th century. These were developed by
Fazekas and Kosa (1978). These methods may tend to over-age modern samples given
the trend of increasing fetal body length during the 20th century. Studies have shown an
increase of 1cm in fetal length every two generations (Olivier, 1977). One centimeter
may seem minimal but is actually quite significant. This secular change could potentially
lead to a modern fetus that is actually 7 lunar months aged at 9 lunar months using
standard prediction models. An over-estimation of fetal age such as this would have a
significant impact on the identification of an individual and could also affect the outcome
of a forensic case.
There are also age estimation formulae developed using data from ultrasounds
and radiographs. Two of these are Chervenak et al. (1998) and Sherwood et al. (2000).
Neither of these studies used measurements collected directly from the fetal skeleton.
They also did not compare their results with age estimates based on the prediction
formulae of Fazekas and Kosa (1978). None of these studies addressed the secular
change in fetal body size. A comparative look at all three studies that also addresses
secular change is necessary to determine which method produces the most accurate age
estimates for forensic fetal remains. It is clear that a method that can accurately age from
dry bone is necessary. According to Stewart (1979) the soft tissue of fetal remains from
the forensic context are often so deteriorated that accurate estimations of size and age can
only be made after the remains are processed into clean, dry bones.
Problem Statement and Thesis Objective

This research tested the efficacy of the traditional method used in forensic
anthropology for fetal age estimation (Fazekas and Kosa, 1978) and compared it to
prediction formulae derived from ultrasounds of in utero fetuses (Chervenak et al., 1998)
and radiological data on modern fetuses (Sherwood et al., 2000). Two data sets from
known age fetal and neonate skeletons were used for testing the age estimation formulae
for fetal remains. It was expected that the recently developed ultrasound method
(Chervenak et al., 1998) would produce more accurate age estimates for modern fetal
remains recovered from the forensic context. This is because the Chervenak et al. (1998)
study utilized normal, healthy pregnancies of modern fetuses. These individuals are
thought to be most like the remains of those found in the forensic context. Fazekas and
Kosa (1978) and Sherwood et al. (2000) both used spontaneously aborted fetuses.
Many studies, past and present, have used spontaneously aborted fetuses which
may show abnormal development whereas forensic cases likely tend to include remains
of a normally developing fetus. It is reasonable to believe that spontaneously aborted
fetuses are not developing normally. According to Sluder and McCollum (2000), 20% of
all conceptions have major chromosomal abnormalities which lead to spontaneous
abortion. Jones et al. (1986) state that it is impossible to determine how the fetal
development was affected in individuals that were spontaneously aborted. They also
cautioned that the normality of the fetus must be taken into account when researching
fetal measurements. Olsen et al. (2002) developed a population based data set of fetal
skeletal measurements from radiographs. Their sample consisted of 495 fetuses in
Norway, 13% of which were aborted the rest were either perinatal or neonatal deaths.
They found that the average bone lengths from their sample were shorter than those from
studies concentrating on healthy fetuses. Olsen (2006) warned against using ultrasound
dating to estimate gestational age in abnormal fetuses due to a wide range of
fetal/placental/maternal abnormalities are associated with fetal growth restriction, which
in turn influences biometry-based dating (p 93). Taking into account the possible effects
of pathology on the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) and Sherwood et al. (2000) models, the
prediction formula developed by Chervenak et al. (1998) should produce the most
accurate age estimations for forensic fetal remains.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The separate study of fetal remains is necessary since morphology is very
different from that of an adult individual. General forensic osteological methods are
either completely useless or are very restricted when applied to fetal remains due to their
lack of development. However, compared to adult individual analysis, when the fetal
remains are complete, aging is relatively easy. The problem arises when only a few
bones are present (Fazekas and Kosa, 1978).
Development
The study of fetal skeletal development has been of interest for centuries. The
first known studies were conducted by Galen (ca. 130-200 A.D.) who recorded seven
ossification centers in the sternum and two in the mandible (Noback, 1944). Since that
time, the process of ossification of fetal bones has been well documented and is relatively
well understood. Fetal skeletal development follows two paths, endochondral and
intramembranous. Intramembranous bones use connective tissue as a model for the
ossification process whereas endochondral bones use a cartilage model. Examples of
intramembranous bones include those of the cranial vault, while bones such as the
humerus and femur, are endochondral in origin (Arey, 1966; Patten, 1968; Hamilton and
Mossman, 1972).
The ossification of fetal endochondral and intramembranous bone begins as early
as the sixth week of gestation. This process happens at a regular rate that is bone specific
(Gray and Gardner, 1969; Gardner and Gray, 1970; Walker, 1991). The process is
similar for both endochondral and intramembranous bones. Endochondral bone
ossification has an additional step, the removal of cartilage to make room for the bone
matrix. Inside the bone cartilage cells enlarge and are then destroyed. This creates the
early stage of the marrow cavity. Vascular tissue invades this cavity and creates the
beginning of the marrow. This gives rise to osteoblasts, which begin the ossification
process by laying down the bone matrix. Osteoblasts use the surfaces of cartilage cells to
deposit matrix; this is what gives the internal matrix of long bones a spongy appearance.
As the bone matrix builds, osteoblasts become trapped and remain so. The spaces these
cells, now called osteocytes, occupy are called lacunae. After spongy bone development
begins, compact bone starts to develop on the surface of the long bone. This is a process
of building bone, destroying bone, and then remodeling bone. The result of which is the
formation of concentric cylinders that contain blood vessels, called Haversian systems
(Arey, 1966; Patten, 1968; Hamilton and Mossman, 1972; Valds-Dapena, 1979). This
system provides the necessary blood supply for continued ossification and bone growth.
Ossification occurs at specific points called ossification centers. Since the
prenatal environment protects the fetus from nutritional deficiencies, the appearance of
ossification centers does not show much variability (Hill, 1939). In particular, the
ossification centers in the long bones appear around the same time (Noback and
Robertson, 1951). While they are temporally close, there is a specific order of
appearance. Ossification centers show up first in the humerus, last in the fibula and
simultaneously in the femur, radius and ulna followed shortly after by the tibia (Bagnall
et al., 1982). Studies have shown that the ossification start points differ between fetuses
an average of 0.3 weeks. The ossification of long bones begins in the center of the
diaphysis and progresses towards the ends of the bones (Deter et al., 1987).
The rate of growth differs significantly between the upper and lower limb bones.
In early development, the upper limb bones are longer than the lower limb bones. This is
due to earlier ossification and faster growth rates. Watkins & German (1992) studied
fetuses aged 19-40 weeks gestation. They found that during later development, the
growth rate of the lower limb bones increases and the bones become longer than those of
the upper limb. This gives body proportions closer to that of an adult (Hattori, 1978).
According to Bagnall et al. (1982), who studied early gestation fetuses, this shift between
upper limb and lower limb development can occur as early as 16 weeks gestation.
Moss (1955) stated The growth of the human fetus is characterized by great
changes in relative proportions that occur simultaneously with absolute increases in
sizeThese quantitative changes are capable of simplified expression (p 528). Robb
and Clarke (1934) showed that the long bones in a fetus show linear growth. Deter et al.
(1987) also found that growth during the fetal phase follows a linear pattern right up until
parturition. There is a slight deceleration right before birth, but it is negligible. This
deceleration in length when looking at long bones, such as the femur, may actually be an
increase in the curvature of the bone (Deter et al., 1987). With an established regular
fetal growth pattern the neonate can be seen as representing the end of this pattern
(Weaver, 1998). By 12-13 weeks gestation bones such as the femur are distinct enough
for identification (Scheuer and Black, 2000). However, according to Issel (1985)
measurements prior to 14 weeks gestation are too poor to use to date pregnancies.
Between the 14th and 16th weeks of gestation long bone measurements are more accurate.
The process of ossification is well understood and provides a way for forensic
osteologists to estimate the age of fetal remains and discern if they are those of a fetus or
neonate.
While ossification and growth are regulated, environmental influences are
possible. Owsley and Jantz (1985) studied fetal and neonatal bones of Arikara Indians.
They state that prenatal growth is hindered in poor socioeconomic conditions. Maternal
malnutrition or illness can result in fetuses that are small for their gestational age.
Henriksen et al. (1996) state that fetal size can be affected by maternal height and weight,
maternal smoking and nutrition. This should be taken into account when analyzing
remains.
According to Chiarelli (1977) the trend of increase in stature is due to
embryological development, not nutrition received as a fetus, infant or child. Therefore
stature is the result of genetics and is not affected by nutrition. This secular change in
fetal body length was shown in a study of Parisian infants from 1910-1972 by Olivier
(1977). Measurements of body length were taken from healthy single births from 1910,
1930, 1952, and 1972. The results show that while the average birth weight of newborns
had not changed, the average body length gradually increased through the years. This
increase in length was shown to be statistically significant. The secular change in fetal
body length must be considered when aging remains.
Huxley (1998a) states that using the regression formulae of Fazekas and Kosa
(1978) to estimate fetal age in a modern forensic case is problematic. This is due to
secular change. She also states that better maternal nutrition, a decrease in disease and
better access to prenatal care may have an effect on the accuracy of these formulae when
used on current remains. Not only is fetal skeletal development affected by the
environment, several studies have documented secular change in adult morphology (Cole,
2000; Meadows and Jantz, 1995; Meadows and Jantz, 1999; Alberman et al., 1991)
Age Estimation
Researchers have looked at several different bones for estimating fetal and
neonate age. Burdi et al. (1979) researched the use of metacarpal and phalangeal bone
lengths to determine crown-rump length. Their sample consisted of 263 fetuses which
were labeled as normal or abnormal using maternal charts. They found that hand bone
lengths had a linear correlation of 0.98 with crown-rump length. Crown-rump length is
commonly used to determine fetal age. The development of the tympanic plate was
studied by Curran and Weaver (1982). They used the Lamb Collection housed at the
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute for their sample. It contained
over 300 fetal and infant skeletons collected from 1902-1917. The tympanic plates were
assessed for their level of development and assigned developmental stage of 1, 2, or 3.
They found that the tympanic plate was very useful in determining whether the remains
were those of a fetus or a neonate. Those assigned Stage 1 are generally fetal, Stage 2 are
generally postnatal and not fetal, and Stage 3 are most likely not fetal. Dilmen et al.
(1995) studied the use of ultrasonographic scapula measurements for determining fetal
growth. They used ultrasound information from 343 healthy pregnancies. The
researchers found strong correlations between scapula length and biparietal diameters,
fetal abdominal circumference, and femur length. The strongest correlation was between
scapula length and femur length. Dilmen et al. (1995) suggest that when assessing
skeletal development, if the femur length cannot be measured, the scapula length could
be useful.
Most researchers have concentrated on long bone lengths for fetal age estimation.
According to Moss et al. (1955) the postcranial bones are used because the length of the
diaphysis can be measured accurately and the diaphysis is the major contributing factor to
the length of the gross body segment. Fazekas and Kosa (1978) state that the diaphysis
measurements of long bones are the best from a medicolegal point of view because they
can be easily identified from the other skeletal bones and are easier to measure than flat
bones that have curves and angles.
Trotter and Peterson (1968) studied total fetal weight, skeletal weight, and long
bone lengths to determine age. They measured and weighed 29 fetuses as cadavers, then
processed them down to dry bone. Once the processing was complete, they measured the
length of the long bone diaphysis except for the ulna and fibula. These dry bone
measurements were then compared to the soft tissue measurements and correlations were
determined. They found a significant correlations between the variables of cadaver
weight, skeletal weight, long bone length and gestational age. A regression model was
developed using these variables and it proved as accurate as a simple allometric model.
The Trotter and Peterson (1968) formula was not used to compare with the Fazekas and
Kosa (1978), Chervenak et al. (2000), and Sherwood et al. (2001) formulae due to their
use of body weight as a variable.
Mehta and Singh (1972) also compared soft tissue measurements and long bone
measurements to fetal age from 50 fetuses. They first measured crown-rump length and
then processed the cadavers. When the skeleton was dried, humerus and femur
diaphyseal lengths were taken. They compared the long bone lengths with crown-rump
length and found a correlation coefficient of 0.9956 for the femur and 0.9893 for the
humerus. Mehta and Singh (1972) stated that crown-rump lengths determined from
humerus or femur diaphyseal lengths can then be used to estimate age on a standard age
and size curve with reasonable accuracy. According to Kosa (1989), long bones are most
useful when determining gestational age. A single bone can give an accurate estimate of
fetal age. This accuracy is fortunate since long bones preserve better as they are more
resistant to decay than other bones of the skeleton. Thus, the fetal remains most likely to
be recovered are also most likely to give accurate age estimates.
Early attempts to generate age estimation formulae for fetal skeletal remains from
the forensic context used skeletal collections where age was based on maternal history or
soft tissue estimates. Fazekas and Kosa (1978) used 138 spontaneously aborted fetuses of
European origin for their sample. In order to obtain the most accurate body length
measurement possible, only fresh cadavers were used. The known ages of these fetuses
were determined from maternal history. The cadavers were measured and then processed
down into dry bones. A linear correlation was found between body length and long bone
length (humerus, ulna, radius, femur, tibia and fibula). This correlation allowed Fazekas
and Kosa (1978) to develop a regression model that used long bone length to estimate
body length. Age was estimated based on the correlation between body length and
gestational age. Using their projection model, Fazekas and Kosa (1978) found when
using femur length, they could estimate age with 1/2 lunar month precision. They found
a R2 of 0.9985 which shows a very strong correlation between the estimated and known
10
ages of the individuals. Overall, they found that their model "showed that the possibility
of error in age determination is remarkably slight, not more than 1/2 lunar month" (p 18).
The work of Fazekas and Kosa (1978) has been tested on other samples by a few
researchers. Ubelaker (1989) tested the utility of the prediction model created by Fazekas
and Kosa (1978) on individual cases. Two fetal skeletons from an archaeological site and
four skeletons from the Smithsonian fetal collections were used. This study found that
the error was much higher than the one-half lunar month found by Fazekas and Kosa
(1978). This was believed to be the result of the application of their method to a different
sample. Ubelaker (1989) stated that the use of poorly preserved specimens from
archaeological and forensic contexts are problematic with this method.
According to Huxley and Jimenez (1996) the findings of Fazekas and Kosa
(1978) have provided standards that are commonly used in forensic anthropology. They
stated that these standards have been accepted with very little criticism of their
techniques. They found that the lack of firm gestational ages in the samples used by
Fazekas and Kosa (1978) was problematic. Huxley and Jimenez (1996) studied the use
of radial diaphyseal length in estimating fetal body length and age. Their results showed
that measurements from the radius estimated an average stature 12-13cm taller than the
ulna, tibia, and fibula. This led to an age estimate two and a half lunar months older than
that derived by the ulna, tibia, and fibula. For this reason, Huxley and Jimenez (1996)
suggest caution when using radial measurements for estimating fetal age.
Fetal skeletal measurements are an important part of ultrasonic gestation
determination in obstetrics. Ultrasound formulae routinely utilize femur diaphyseal
length. Like most age estimation regression formulae, ultrasound formulae use femur
11
diaphyseal length to determine the length of the fetus. Fetal length is then used to
determine the gestational age. Researchers have looked at the validity of such
correlations. Attico et al. (1990) stated that femur lengths determined by ultrasound can
be a very accurate predictor of fetal age with an error of plus or minus one week.
Quinlan et al. (1982) researched femur length measurements collected by ultrasound and
their use to determine age. Femur lengths were measured on 125 pregnancies from 14-36
weeks gestation. Linear regression analysis was performed and they found an accuracy
of plus or minus seven days with 95% confidence. While it has been shown that the
femur is helpful in age estimation, Goldstein, Filly and Simpson (1987) warned about
possible problems using femur length for estimating fetal age. They found that certain
angles with an ultrasound can result in shortening of the femur in the image and thus
underestimation of femur length. They did state that when the femur is accurately
measured, it can be a valuable piece of information.
Jeanty et al. (1984) studied the estimation of gestational age of fetuses from long
bone lengths taken by ultrasound. They looked at the humerus, femur, tibia and ulna
lengths in 220 healthy fetuses from 12-40 weeks gestation. The results showed that each
bone was reliable at estimating gestational age; however, Jeanty et al (1984) suggested
using a combination of bones, e.g. humerus and femur, when possible to increase
accuracy. Hadlock et al (1987) also found that using multiple parameters was more
accurate for fetal age estimation using ultrasound measurements.
Chervenak et al. (1998) studied the accuracy of aging in-utero fetuses by
ultrasound. The sample consisted of 152 pregnancies from 1990-1996 at The New York
Hospital-Cornell Medical Center. Head circumference, biparietal diameter, femur length,
12
and abdominal circumference measurements were taken. They developed several

regression formula and tested them to see which was the most accurate at estimating age.
These regression formulae used single measurements as well as combinations of different
measurements. Several formulae were found to be accurate in estimating fetal age. They
found that head circumference was the most accurate, however, femur length increased
accuracy when added as a variable to a regression formula. Chervenak et al. (1998)
found that the formula based on femur length produced age estimates that had strong,
statistically significant correlations with the known ages of the individuals used in their
study. The regression formula for femur length had an R of 0.914 with an error of 4.35
days.
Researchers have also attempted to develop age estimation formulae from
radiographic measurements. Scheuer et al. (1980) took long bone measurements from
radiographs of 82 individuals. The femur, tibia, humerus, radius, and ulna were used.
They developed logarithmic and linear regression models to estimate age. Data from four
archaeological fetal remains were run through these regression formulae and the resulting
age estimates were compared to those produced using formulae developed by other
authors. Scheuer et al. (1980) found that the estimated ages from their research coincided
with those of the other formulae. They note that the radiographs were most likely those
of fetuses with abnormal development and they would not be representative of normal
fetuses. Scheuer et al. (1980) thought that this might not be problematic since fetal
remains that an archeologist or anthropologist would work with would most likely be
those of a developmentally abnormal fetus. Falkner and Roche (1987) used radiographic
measurements of femur diaphyses and compared those to the recumbent length in 238
13
neonates. They found a highly significant correlation between femur length and
recumbent length.
Huxley (1998a) compared the results of three different regression formulae,
Olivier and Pineau (1958; 1960), Fazekas and Kosa (1978), and Weaver (1986), using
measurements from a single fetus. Diaphyseal lengths were taken from radiographs and
were corrected for shrinkage before running the data through the formulae. She found
that the different ages generated were comparable. Huxley (1998a) also looked at foot
length to estimate gestational age and found that it corresponded with ages from
diaphyseal lengths.
Warren (1999) used radiographic long bone measurements to estimate ages in 398
spontaneously aborted and aborted fetuses from 4 lunar months gestation to neonate.
These were used to develop a regression formula to calculate crown heel length. Age
estimates derived from this formula were compared with those derived using Fazekas and
Kosa (1978) formulae. The results were corresponded closely with Fazekas and Kosas
(1978) results. Warren (1999) suggested that radiographic measurements be used when
dry bone measurements are unavailable or undesirable.
Bareggi et al. (1994) researched the accuracy of total length of developing arm
long bones versus ossified length as corresponding to developmental age. Their sample
included 58 aborted embryos and fetuses. They found that the total length, which
included cartilage that had not been ossified yet, did not have a reliable correlation with
age. Bareggi et al. (1994) found that the ossified portion of long bones showed a much
stronger correlation with developmental age.
14
Recent work in fetal age estimation has looked at a mixture of soft tissue
measurements and measurements from radiographs. Sherwood et al. (2000) used this
technique on a sample of 136 fetuses. These fetuses had been spontaneously aborted and
the known ages were based on maternal history. Seventy-two of the fetuses were
determined to be the result of an acute mechanism of fetal loss such as intra-uterine
infection or acute placental-cord compromise. These individuals comprised the core
group for age estimation. The rest of the fetuses were diagnosed with pathological
conditions such as trisomy 18, trisomy 21, Turner's syndrome, anencephaly, spina bifida,
renal dysgenesis, miscellaneous chromosomal anomalies, and uterovascular
insufficiency. Soft tissue measurements were taken, and then the cadavers were
autopsied and radiographed. Long bone measurements were taken from these
radiographs and regression formulae were developed. The estimated ages generated by
Sherwood et al. (2000) were compared with ages generated by the Chevernak et al.
(1998) model. Fetuses were consistently under-aged 2 to 4 weeks by the Chevernak et al.
(1998) method. They found that radiological measurements were more accurate but
noted that the difference could be due to the difference between aborted fetuses versus
healthy in utero fetuses. It was also found that skeletal measurements from the femur,
tibia, and ulna were the best predictors of age with the femur length being the best
overall.
Problems with Fetal Age Estimation

It should be noted that there are some inherent problems with aging fetal remains.
Probably the most significant is that the exact age of the fetus can never be known
15
without some discrepancy. This is due to potential error in calculating the gestational age
of the fetus based off of LMP or Last Menstrual Period (Roche 1980). According to
Jones et al. (1986), there is an error of at least +/- 1 week when determining gestational
age by LMP dates, even if the dates are known with accuracy. They found that even in
women who knew the exact day of copulation that resulted in pregnancy; it was difficult
to determine an exact gestational age. Therefore, it is difficult to develop a completely
accurate aging methodology. According to Roche (1980) there is no way to solve this
problem but the effects can be lessened by using data with more reliable gestational ages.
Sexual dimorphism has been posed as an issue in fetal development. Researchers
have found conflicting results. It has been postulated that female fetuses begin
ossification earlier than male fetuses (Cope and Murdoch, 1958). Some studies have
found that females did seem to be more advanced in their ossification after 21 weeks
gestation, but it was not statistically significant (Bagnall et al., 1978; Bagnall et al.,
1982). An early study by Hill (1939) showed that female fetuses were advanced for a
period of time and that male fetuses caught up by birth. Burdi (1979) found that female
fetuses had more bones developed than males of the same age and the bones of females
were longer. According to Weaver (1998) the bones of male fetuses are generally
heavier and longer than those of females of the same chronological age. Other studies
have shown that the sex of the fetus does not change the ossification rate or growth
velocity (Hesdorffer and Scammon, 1928; Panattoni et al, 1999). Research by Birbeck
(1976) did not show any evidence of sexual dimorphism when evaluating limb bones for
gestational age. According to Deter et al. (1987) and Sherwood et al. (2000), the growth
of the femur does not show any difference between male and female fetuses.
16
Asymmetry in limb bone ossification of the human fetus has could create
potential problems with fetal age estimation. Research has shown that there is a
difference in the growth rate in an individual between the left and right side (Bagnall et
al., 1978; Bagnall et al., 1982). However, when averaged throughout a sample of
individuals, the difference in the growth rate was not significant and would therefore not
be an issue skewing data.
Another potential problem with estimating the age of fetuses is ancestry
(Henriksen et al., 1996). Jakobovits et al. (1972) studied crown rump lengths in embryos
and found the differences between American, half of which were of African ancestry, and
Danish individuals were not significant. However, they stated that separate standards
should be developed for each due to the bias in their data. Hungarian individuals
established the early stages, Danish the middle stages, and American the highest
developmental stages. This makes it difficult to compare to show ancestry differences.
Fetal femur lengths from ultrasound measurements in Hispanic, Black, Oriental,
and Caucasian fetuses were compared by Ruvolo et al (1987). Femur length
measurements were taken from 314 fetuses where the last known menstrual period was
between 19 and 32 weeks prior to the study. Ruvolo et al (1987) used ultrasound
regression formulae to estimate gestational age from these femur lengths. There was no
statistically significant difference found between the four groups.
Davis et al. (1993) compared several ultrasound fetal measurements by ancestry.
Biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference and femur length
were the variables studied. Their sample included 2,831 pregnancies where 70% were
black and 30% were white. All participants were below the US Federal poverty level.
17
They found that black fetuses had significantly longer femurs than white fetuses. Their
study evaluated fetuses from 16-40 weeks gestation. This difference in femur length was
shown to be true in almost every gestational age. Davis et al. (1993) stated that while
they did find differences, it did not significantly impact the ultrasound determination of
gestational age. They thought that this may be to their use of a formula with multiple
parameters.
The effect of ancestry on fetal measurements was researched by Lim et al (2000).
Their study included 450 neonates born to Malaysian, Chinese, and Indian women. All
were healthy pregnancies with live births. Femur length was measured using ultrasound
within 48 hours of birth. The mean femur length of Indian neonates was significantly
longer than that of the Malaysian and Chinese neonates. They concluded that there are
differing body proportions in various Asian populations. This supported the results of
previous research by Yeo et al. (1994).
Shipp et al. (2001) took femoral measurements by ultrasound from 39 Asian, 31
black, and 100 white pregnancies from 15 to 20 weeks gestation. They found that the
femur lengths of Asian fetuses were shorter than expected and those of black fetuses were
longer than expected. Shipp et al. (2001) concluded that there were slight differences
between races. While this is a small difference, they believed that it could have an effect
when using fetal biometry charts.
Prenatal growth differences between ethnicities were studied by Drooger et al
(2005). This study included 1494 pregnancies of Dutch, Turkish, Moroccan, Cape
Verdian, Dutch Antillian/Aruban, and Surinamese women. Ultrasound measurements
were collected at 12, 20, and 30 weeks gestation. Femur lengths were found to be
18
relatively similar across the groups except for the Dutch Antilian/Aruban group. These
fetuses had much longer femurs, however due to the small number of individuals
representing this group the researchers did not feel that it was statistically significant.
Overall, there were no significant differences in femur length among these ethnic groups.
According to Weaver (1998) researchers had hoped that some of the traits used to
determine biological affinity in adult skeletal material would be found in fetal and
neonatal skeletons. Controlled study of this question has not been done and so far there
are no standards for determining ancestry for fetal remains (Rhine 1995).
19
METHODS AND MATERIALS

This research tested the efficacy of the traditional method used in forensic
anthropology for fetal age estimation (Fazekas and Kosa, 1978) and compared it to
prediction formulae derived from radiological data on modern fetuses (Sherwood et al.,
2000) and ultrasounds of modern in utero fetuses (Chervenak et al., 1998). Two data
sets, a historical sample and a forensic sample, from known age fetal and neonate
skeletons were used for testing the age estimation formulae for fetal remains.
Test Samples
Historical Sample: The first data set consists of measurements from the Lamb
collection that is housed by the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution in Washington DC. Measurements of the Lamb collection were recorded by
Mary Herbert-Ray (1997); this data set was made available for this study by Dr. David
Hunt, curator in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution.
This collection consists of known age fetal remains collected between 1902 and
1917 (Curran and Weaver, 1982). The age range of this collection is 12 weeks gestation
to neonates. The majority of this collection consists of spontaneously aborted fetuses.
Therefore, it may be biased towards abnormal or pathological conditions (Huxley, 2005).
Seventy-six individuals from this collection were used. The rest were excluded due to
lack of known age.
Forensic Sample: The second data set consists of fetal remains of known ages
from modern forensic cases. Individuals in this sample were from the Forensic Data
20
Bank, which contains data from forensic cases from across the United States, and the
William M. Bass III Donated Collection both maintained by the Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Measurements from 20 individuals
in the Bass Collection were collected personally, 11 of which were used in this study.
The others were removed due to a lack of known age. This data set also included
measurements from forensic cases obtained by surveying medical examiners across the
country. Data from 7 individuals were sent to me by the Office of the Chief Medical
Examiner in Chapel Hill, NC. All 7 were included for a total of 18 individuals in the data
set. This sample was used to show which of the three methods of age estimation is most
accurate for modern, potentially healthy fetuses recovered from the forensic context.
Measurements
The individuals from the Forensic Data Bank were measured in the following
manner. Long bone lengths and widths were observed for the humerus, ulna, radius,
femur, tibia and fibula using digital calipers (Table 1) (Figure 1). All possible
measurements were taken, however only femoral diaphyseal length was utilized in this
research (Figure 2) (Table 2).
Table 1: Definitions of measurements taken

Diaphysis
length
Distal
width
Proximal
width
Midshaft
width
Measurement of the longest point from the proximal end to the distal end of the
long bone
Measurement of the widest point from medial to lateral on the distal end of the
long bone
Measurement of the widest point from medial to lateral on the proximal end of the
long bone
Measurement of the width of the long bone at the midshaft point
21
Figure 1: Example of Femur Measurements: A) Diaphysis length B) Distal width C)

Proximal width D) Midshaft Width
22
Table 2: Exam
T
mple of meaasurements taaken of indivviduals in thhe William M.
M Bass III
D
Donated
Colllection houseed in the Deppartment of Anthropologgy, Universiity of Tennessee,
K
Knoxville.
ID
number
collection
known
age
sex
race
year
UT3000D
UTK
donated
1 day
hispanic
female
2000
Diaphysiss
Humerus length
Right
60.06mm
m
Left
59.58mm
m
Ulna
Right
57.88mm
m
Left
57.31mm
m
Radius
Right
48.97mm
m
Left
49.22mm
m
Femur
Right
69.56mm
m
Left
70.41mm
m
Tibia
Right
60.20mm
m
Left
60.70mm
m
Fibula
Right
56.96mm
m
Left
56.68mm
m
Distal
Proximaal Midshaft
width
width
width
13.98mm
m 10.34m
mm
4.49m
mm Notes: Left humerus
14.64mm
m 10.28m
mm
4.46m
mm erodedd on
prox end
4.31mm
m
3.83mm
m
5.40m
mm
5.45m
mm
3.18m
mm
2.93m
mm
7.90mm
m
8.31mm
m
4.70m
mm
5.25m
mm
3.61m
mm
3.69m
mm
16.54mm
m
17.37mm
m
12.33m
mm
11.81m
mm
5.45m
mm
5.30m
mm
9.72mm
m
9.90mm
m
12.19m
mm
13.15m
mm
5.21m
mm
5.10m
mm
5.07mm
m
5.21mm
m
4.40m
mm
4.47m
mm
2.08m
mm
2.13m
mm
Figure 2: Exaample of fetaal leg bone diaphyses

d
UT
TK 16-95D
23
Analysis
Age estimation formulae were tested using left femoral diaphyseal lengths from
the two test samples. The regression formulae of Fazekas and Kosa (1978), Chervenak et
al. (1998), and Sherwood et al. (2000) were programmed into Microsoft Excel (Table 3).
Femur measurements from the two test samples were used with all three of the formulae.
The product of Fazekas and Kosas (1978) formula is body length. These lengths were
then compared with the published chart (p 266) to determine lunar month age. The
Sherwood et al. (2000) formula resulted in age estimated in weeks, while the Chervenak
et al. (1998) estimated age in days. Results from the estimation formula of Fazekas and
Kosa (1978) and Chervenak et al. (1998) were converted to weeks so they could be
compared easily with the results from the Sherwood et al. (2000) formula. Chervenak et
al. (1998) age estimates in days were divided by 7 to obtain an age in weeks. Fazekas
and Kosa (1978) age estimates in lunar months were multiplied by 4. The Fazekas and
Kosa (1978) model gives a lunar age range, for example 7-71/2 lunar months which is
28-30 weeks. The average was taken, in this example it would be 29 weeks, to make for
easy comparison with the other age estimates. Known ages of the individuals in the
samples were also converted to weeks for comparison. It should be noted that the
Forensic Sample included neonates ranging from 1 day old to a few weeks old. These
individuals were given the age of 40 weeks.
24
Table 3: Regression Formulae using the variable Femur Length (FL)

Author
FazekasandKosa
(1978)
Chervenaketal.
(1998)
Sherwoodetal.
(2000)
Formula
FL*6.44+4.51
Product
body
length
70.62+21.78*FL days
10.91+0.38*FL
weeks
Huxley and Angevine (1998) showed that lunar months and gestational months
are not directly comparable. The deviation between the two increases as the pregnancy
progresses. For this reason, the known ages from the data sets were converted from
gestational months or lunar months to weeks. Gestational age is based on a gestation
term of 40 weeks (Attico et al., 1990). Lunar age is based on a gestation term of 10 lunar
months (ten months of four weeks or 28 days each, for a total of 280 days)
(Krogman,1972). This conversion allowed for comparison between the known and
estimated ages.
The estimated ages were compared to the known ages of the fetuses. Regression
analysis and ANOVA tests were run to test the strength of the relationship between
known age and estimated age. The known age was the independent variable and the
estimated age was the dependent variable. Error was calculated by subtracting the known
age (KA) from the estimated age (EA). This resulted in either a positive or negative
number which represents the bias, ie. underestimation or overestimation of the age. For
example, an individual with a known age of 28 weeks was aged 30.328 weeks by the
Sherwood et al. (2001) formula, 25.98797 weeks by the Chervenak et al. (1999) formula,
and 29 weeks by the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula. To see the accuracy of these
estimations, the error and bias was calculated. When the error and bias was calculated
25
for the age estimate produced by the Sherwood et al. (2000) model, an error of 2.328 with
a positive bias was found. The error and bias for the Chervenak et al. (1998) model's
estimate showed an error of 2.012 with a negative bias while the estimated age calculated
by the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) model had an error of 1 with a positive bias (Table 4).
Table 4: Error and bias determination for an individual with a known age of 28 weeks.
Estimated
age
Sherwood
et al (2000)
30.328
Error
(EA - KA)
2.328
Bias
positive/over-age
Chervenak
et al (1998)
25.98797
Fazekas
and Kosa
(1978)
29
-2.012
negative/underage
positive/over-age
Considerations
The comparison of regression formulae for ultrasound, radiographs and dry bone
might be questioned. However, it has been shown that femur lengths derived from
ultrasound and later from radiographs of the same individual fall within the same range.
Therefore, measurements taken from radiographs can be plotted with accuracy onto
ultrasound growth curves (van der Harten et al., 1990). Since both ultrasound and
radiographic measurements are of the diaphysis only (Deter et al., 1987; van der Harten
et al., 1990) it may be possible to use dry bone measurements in these formulae. There
are potential issues comparing radiographs to skeletal material. Weaver (1998) warned
that corrections are needed when using radiographic data to determine skeletal age. This
26
was due to parallax errors and varying tissue thickness (p 192). Weaver (1998) stated
that these corrections would be made easier with the use of standard radiographic
techniques. However, there is evidence that it may not be a significant issue. Goldstein
et al. (1987) compared radiographic, ultrasound and skeletal measurements from a fetus
to determine accuracy. They found a perfect correlation between the three methods of
data collection. According to Jeanty et al. (1982), ultrasound formulae could be valuable
to archaeologists and medicolegal authorities. Jeanty et al. (1981) and Jeanty et al.
(1982) was a two part study observing fetal limb growth ultrasonically. Jeanty et al.
(1981) looked at the humerus and femur, while Jeanty et al. (1982) looked at the ulna,
radius, tibia, and fibula. They developed regression formulae after collecting
measurements from 450 fetuses. Gestational age was determined by crown-rump length.
Jeanty et al. (1982) then took measurements from archaeological fetuses and estimated
ages with their ultrasound charts. The age estimations that they derived were in the range
of what had been previously recorded by archaeologists.
It should be noted that there is some shrinkage from green bone to dry bone.
Huxley (1998a) used radiographs to measure diaphyseal length and then corrected for
shrinkage before using the measurements in regression formulae. This was applicable
since it was a case review of a single fetus. According to Huxley (1998b) the percent of
shrinkage is highest in early development, and is less significant in older fetuses.
Therefore, the correction is dependent on age. Correcting for shrinkage in this research
would have biased the data.
As mentioned earlier, sexual dimorphism can have an effect on skeletal
development in fetuses. Therefore, sexual dimorphism is definitely something that
27
should be considered when choosing an element of the skeleton for aging. For this
research, the formulae used only utilize the measurement for femur length. According to
Deter et al. (1987) and Sherwood et al. (2000) the femur does not show evidence of
sexual dimorphism.
28
RESULTS
The following results are divided into two sections. The first section states the
results for the Historical Data Set, the second section states those for the Forensic Data
Set. Each section is broken down into three parts; results for the Fazekas and Kosa
(1978) formula, the Chervenak et al. (1998) formula, and the Sherwood et al. (2000)
formula.
Historical Data Set

Fazekas and Kosa (1978) Historical Data Set Results
A comparison of the estimated ages from the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula to
the known ages of the historical individuals showed a wide range of variation (Figure 3).
When regression was applied using SPSS an R of 0.7802 and an adjusted R of 0.777
was found (Table 5). ANOVA analysis showed a F-value of 262.630 and a p-value of
<0.01 (Table 6). This shows a strong correlation between the estimated and the known
ages which is also statistically significant. This shows that the Fazekas and Kosa (1978)
model produced estimated ages similar to the known ages of the individuals in the
Historical Data Set.
29
Estimated vs Known Age
45
40
35
Estimated F & K
30
25
20
15
10
y = 0.9255x + 4.6661
R2 = 0.7802
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Known
Figure 3: Comparison of estimated age using Fazekas and Kosa (1978) to known age
with linear regression applied
Table 5: R results from SPSS for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age estimations on historical
data set
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square
.883a
.780
Adjusted
R Square
.777
Std. Error of
the Estimate
3.32247
a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00003
Table 6: ANOVA results for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age estimations on historical data
set
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
2899.127
816.873
3716.000
df
1
74
75
Mean Square
2899.127
11.039
F
262.630
Sig.
.000a

b. Dependent Variable: VAR00004
The Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula over-aged individuals in the Historical
Data Set an average of 2.355 weeks. The most accurate age estimation was of
30
inndividuals att 40 weeks. The most significant diffference betw

ween estimaated age and
knnown age was
w seen in thhe youngest individuals (Table
(
7) (Figure 4).
Table 7: Rang
T
ge of estimated ages andd breakdownn of bias of thhe Fazekas and
a Kosa (19978)
foormula on hiistorical indiividuals by age
a in weekss.
No. of
N
In
ndividuals
2
4
3
8
12
7
36
4
Known
K
Age
A
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
Estimated
e
age
ran
nge
18-19
17-21
25-29
21-29
24-35
27-40
23-40
40
Ave
erage
Error
6.5
2.25
7
1.5
1.42
2.29
2.52
0
Bias
over-age
over-age
over-age
over-age
over-age
over-age
over-age
no bias
E
and Biaas on Historiical Data Sett
Figure 4: Fazzekas and Koosa (1978) Error
C
Chervenak
ett al. (1998) Historical
H
Daata Set Resullts
A com
mparison of the
t estimatedd ages from the Chervennak et al. (19998) formulaa to
ges of the hisstorical indivviduals show
wed a wide raange of variaation (Figuree 5).
thhe known ag
31
When regression was applied using SPSS an R of 0.752 and an adjusted R of 0.748 was
found (Table 8). ANOVA analysis showed a F-value of 224.127 and a p-value of < 0.01
(Table 9). This shows a strong correlation between the estimated and the known ages
which is also statistically significant. This shows that the Chervenak et al. (1998) model
produced estimated ages similar to the known ages of the individuals in the Historical
Data Set.
40
35
Estimated C et al
30
25
20
15
10
y = 0.6572x + 8.4722
2
R = 0.7518
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Known
Figure 5: Comparison of estimated age using Chervenak et al. (1998) to known age with
linear regression applied
Table 8: R results from SPSS for Chervenak et al. (1998) age estimations on historical
data set
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square
.867a
.752
Adjusted
R Square
.748
Std. Error of
the Estimate
3.53051
32
Table 9: ANOVA results for Chervenak et al. (1998) age estimations on historical data
set
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
2793.628
922.372
3716.000
df
Mean Square
2793.628
12.464
1
74
75
F
224.127
Sig.
.000a

The Chervenak et al. (1998) formula under-aged individuals in the Historical Data
Set an average of 2.153 weeks. This formula over aged younger individuals and under
aged older individuals (Table 10) (Figure 6).
Table 10: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the Chervenak et al. (1998)
formula on historical individuals by age in weeks.
No. of
Individuals
Known
Age
12
16
20
24
12
28
32
36
36
40
Estimated
age range
17.9619.24
16.5920.73
23.1926.096
20.7925.83
22.5529.22
24.5635.34
Average
Error
21.8-35.99
32.7135.51
3.501
Bias
6.598
over-age
1.991
over-age
4.541
over-age
underage
underage
underage
underage
underage
0.515
2.086
2.892
5.751
33
Figure 6: Cheervenak et all. (1998) Errror and Bias on Historicaal Data Set
Sherwood et al. (2000) Historical

H
Datta Set Resultts
mparison of the
t estimatedd ages from the Sherwoood et al. (20000) formula to
A com
thhe known ag
ges of the hisstorical indivviduals show
wed a wide raange of variaation (Figuree 7).
W
When
regresssion was appplied using SPSS
S
an R of
o 0.752 and an adjusted R of 0.748 was
foound (Table 11). ANOV
VA analysis showed
s
a F-vvalue of 2244.127 and a p-value
p
of <00.01
(T
Table 12). This
T shows a strong correelation betw
ween the estim
mated and thhe known agges
w
which
is also statistically significant. This showss that the Sheerwood et all. (2000) moodel
prroduced estiimated ages similar to thhe known agees of the inddividuals in the
t Historicaal
D Set.
Data
34

45
40
35
Estimated S et al
30
25
20
15
10
y = 0.8027x + 8.9359
2
R = 0.7518
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Known
Figure 7: Comparison of estimated age using Sherwood et al. (2000) to known age with
Table 11: R results from SPSS for Sherwood et al. (2000) age estimations on historical
data set
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square
.867a
.752
Adjusted
R Square
.748
Std. Error of
the Estimate
3.53051
Table 12: ANOVA results for Sherwood et al. (2000) age estimations on historical data
set
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
2793.628
922.372
3716.000
df
1
74
75

35
Mean Square
2793.628
12.464
F
224.127
Sig.
.000a
The Sherwood et al. (2000) formula over-aged individuals in the Historical Data
Set an average of 2.819 weeks. This formula over-aged individuals of all ages (Table 13)
(Figure 8).
Table 13: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the Sherwood et al. (2000)
formula on historical individuals by age in weeks.
No. of
Individuals
Known
Age
12
16
20
24
12
28
32
36
36
40
Estimated
age
range
20.5222.08
18.8523.91
26.9130.46
23.9830.14
26.1334.28
28.5841.75
25.2242.55
38.5441.96
Average
Error
Bias
9.303
over-age
4.562
over-age
8.561
over-age
3.271
over-age
2.238
over-age
2.101
over-age
2.279
over-age
0.417
over-age
36
o Historicall Data Set

Figure 8: Sheerwood et al.. (2000) Erroor and Bias on
Forensic Dataa Set
Fazekas and Kosa

K
(1978)) Forensic Data Set Resuults
A com
mparison of the
t Fazekas and Kosa (11978) estimaated ages to the
t known agges
of the modern
n forensic inndividuals shhowed a widee range of vaariation (Figgure 9). Wheen
0
was foound
reegression waas applied ussing SPSS ann R of 0.4866 and an adjuusted R of 0.453
(T
Table 14). ANOVA
A
anallysis showedd a F-value of
o 15.107 and a p-value of
o <0.01 (Taable
15). This sho
ows a much weaker
w
correelation betw
ween the estim
mated and knnown ages thhan
D Set, butt it is still staatistically siggnificant.
seeen with the Historical Data
37
Known vs Fazekas & Kosa Age

45
40
35
Estimated
30
25
20
15
10
y = 0.593x + 10.301
R2 = 0.4856
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Known
Figure 9: Comparison of estimated age using Fazekas and Kosa (1978) to known age
with linear regression applied
Table 14: R results from SPSS for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age estimations on modern
forensic data set
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square
.697a
.486
Adjusted
R Square
.453
Std. Error of
the Estimate
7.02610
Table 15: ANOVA results for Fazekas and Kosa (1978) age estimations on modern
forensic data set
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
745.753
789.858
1535.611
df
1
16
17

38
Mean Square
745.753
49.366
F
15.107
Sig.
.001a
The Fazekas
F
and Kosa
K
(1978)) formula unnder-aged inddividuals in the
t modern
foorensic set an
n average off 2.611 weekks. The mostt significant difference between
b
esstimated agee and knownn age was seeen in the 18 week and 400 week old inndividuals with
w a
teendency to over-age
o
the younger andd under-age the
t older (Taable 16) (Figgure 10).
Table 16: Ran

T
nge of estim
mated ages annd breakdow
wn of bias of the Fazekas and Kosa
(11978) formu
ula on moderrn forensic inndividuals byy age in weeeks.
No. of
N
In
ndividuals
2
1
2
1
1
Known
K
Age
A
18
19
22
23
25
Estimated
e
age
ran
nge
19-25
19
21-27
23
25
Ave
erage
Error
4
0
2
0
0
1
2
26
39
25
40
1
1
40
21-40
7.5
Bias
overr-age
no bias
overr-age
no bias
no bias
nderun
age
overr-age
nderun
age
Figure 10 : Faazekas and Kosa

K
(1978) Error and Bias
B on Forennsic Data Seet
39
Chervenak et al (1998) Forensic Data Set Results

A comparison of the estimated ages from the Chervenak et al. (1998) formula to
the known ages of the modern forensic individuals showed a wide range of variation
(Figure 11). When regression was applied using SPSS an R of 0.468 and an adjusted R
of 0.435 was found (Table 17). ANOVA analysis showed a F-value of 14.085 and a pvalue of <0.01 (Table 18). This shows a much weaker correlation between the estimated
and known ages than seen with the Historical Data Set, but it is still statistically
significant.
Known vs Chevernak et al. Age
35
30
Estimated
25
20
15
10
y = 0.3777x + 13.692
2
R = 0.4682
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Known
Figure 11: Comparison of estimated age using Chervenak et al. (1998) to known age with
40
Table 17: R results from SPSS for Chervenak et al. (1998) age estimations on modern
forensic data set
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square
.684a
.468
Adjusted
R Square
.435
Std. Error of
the Estimate
7.14437
Table 18: ANOVA results for Chervenak et al. (1998) age estimations on modern
forensic data set
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
718.939
816.673
1535.611
df
1
16
17
Mean Square
718.939
51.042
F
14.085
Sig.
.002a

The Chervenak et al. (1998) formula under-aged individuals in the modern

forensic set an average of 6.050 weeks. The most significant difference between
estimated age and known age was seen in the older individuals (Table 19) (Figure 12).
41
Table 19: Ran

T
nge of estim
mated ages annd breakdow
wn of bias of the Chervennak et al. (19998)
foormula on modern
m
forennsic individuaals by age inn weeks.
No. of
N
In
ndividuals
2
Known
K
Age
A
Estimated
age
e range
19.6923.069
Average
A
E
Error
0.429
22
18.57
20.55224.476
23
21.601
1.399
25
23.222
1.931
26
23.079
32.49132.861
20.55533.225
2.921
18
3.379
1
19
2
0.514
1
1
1
2
39
8
40
6.324
12.189
Bia
as
ovver-age
underage
ovver-age
underage
underage
underage
underage
underage
hervenak et al.
a (1998) Errror and Biass on Forensiic Data Set
Figure 12: Ch
Sherwood et al. (2000) Foorensic Dataa Set Resultss

mparison of the
t estimatedd ages from the Sherwoood et al. (20000) formula to
A com
thhe known ag
ges of the moodern forensic individuals showed a wide range of variation
42
(Figure 13). When regression was applied using SPSS an R of 0.468 and an adjusted R
of 0.435 was found (Table 20). ANOVA analysis showed a F-value of 14.085 and a pvalue of <0.01 (Table 21). This shows a much weaker correlation between the estimated
and known ages than seen with the Historical Data Set, but it is still statistically
significant.
Known vs Sherwood et al. Age

45
40
35
Estimated
30
25
20
15
10
y = 0.4612x + 15.311
2
R = 0.4682
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Known
Figure 13: Comparison of estimated age using Sherwood et al. (2000) to known age with
Table 20: R results from SPSS for Sherwood et al. (2000) age estimations on modern
forensic data set
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square
.684a
.468
Adjusted
R Square
.435
Std. Error of
the Estimate
7.14437
43
Table 21: ANOVA results for Sherwood et al. (2000) age estimations on modern forensic
data set
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
718.939
816.673
1535.611
df
1
16
17
Mean Square
718.939
51.042
F
14.085
Sig.
.002a

The Sherwood et al. (2000) formula under-aged individuals in the modern

forensic set an average of 1.780 weeks. This formula over-aged younger individuals and
under-aged older individuals (Table 22) (Figure 14).
Table 22: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the Sherwood et al. (2000)
formula on modern forensic individuals by age in weeks.
No. of
Individuals
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
Known
Age
18
19
22
23
25
26
39
40
Estimated
age range
22.63726.764
21.269
23.68928.481
24.97
26.949
Average
Error
26.775
38.2738.722
23.69339.167
Bias
6.7002
2.269
over-age
over-age
4.085
1.97
1.949
over-age
over-age
over-age
0.775
over-age
underage
underage
0.504
7.446
44
Figure 14: Sh
herwood et al. (2000) Errror and Biass on Forensicc Data Set
45
DISCUSSION
Historical Data Set

The estimated ages produced by the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula proved to
be accurate for the historical data set. The R of 0.780 and p-value of <0.01 show a
statistically significant relationship between the estimated ages and the known ages of the
individuals. The closer the R value is to 1, the stronger the correlation is between the
independent (known age) and dependent (estimated age) variables. P-value shows the
likelihood that the relationship between the variables is due to chance. Therefore, a pvalue of <0.01 means that less than 1% of the correlation between the known ages of the
Historical Data Set and the estimated ages produced by the Fazekas and Kosa (1978)
model is the result of chance. While the formula did tend to overage, the error was
minimal and averaged 2.355 weeks. This is similar to the error of one-half lunar month
as reported by Fazekas and Kosa (1978) for their model.
The Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula produced the most inaccurate age estimates
for the 12-week-old individuals and the 20-week-old individuals. The error of the 12
week-old estimations is most likely due to the level of ossification. Issel (1985) stated
that measurements taken prior to 14 weeks gestation were not reliable to date
pregnancies. The error of the 20 week-old individuals is slightly more difficult to
explain. There is the possibility that these individuals have some unusual development
that resulted in them being over-aged so drastically. The average bias of the age
estimates derived by the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula for the remaining individuals
remained close to the one-half lunar month error reported by the authors.
46
The Chervenak et al. (1998) formula also produced accurate age estimates for the
Historical Data Set. The R of 0.752 and p-value of <0.01 shows a statistically
significant relationship between the estimated ages and the known ages of the
individuals. This method tended to over-age individuals in the Historical Data Set. An
average positive error of 2.153 weeks was found.
The Chervenak et al. (1998) formula was off by over 3 weeks on age estimates for
the 12, 20, 36, and 40 week-old individuals with the most error seen for the 12 week-old
and 40 week-old individuals. The 12 week-old individuals were over-aged an average of
6.598 weeks. Once again, the error of the 12 week-old age estimation is most likely due
to the ossification process and reliable measurements for age estimation not being
possible until 14 weeks gestation (Issel, 1985). The 40 week-old individuals were underaged an average of 5.751 weeks. Interestingly, this method over-aged individuals from
12-20 weeks gestational age and under-aged those from 20-40 weeks gestation age.
These results are similar to the results that Sherwood et al. (2000) reported when they
utilized the Chervenak et al. (1998) formula. Sherwood et al. (2000) found that fetuses
were consistently under-aged 2 to 4 weeks by the Chervenak et al. (1998) method. The
results of the 40 week-old individuals in the Historical Data Set are in line with previous
bias found with the Chervenak et al. (1998) formula.
The age estimates produced by Sherwood et al. (2000) proved to be accurate for
the Historical Data Set. The R of 0.752 and p-value of <0.01 show a statistically
significant relationship between the estimated ages and the known ages of the
individuals. This method tended to over-age individuals by an average of 2.189 weeks.
47
The most error for age estimates produced by the Sherwood et al. (2000) formula
were for the 12 week-old individuals and the 20 week-old individuals. The results for the
12 week-old individuals can once again be explained by the ossification process making
measurements unreliable for age estimation until 14 weeks gestation (Issel, 1985). It is
difficult to determine the cause of the error in the age estimates for the 20 week-old
individuals. It is possible that these individuals have some unusual development that
resulted in them being over-aged so drastically. This is the most likely cause rather than
a fault in the method since these individuals were also over-aged by the Fazekas and
Kosa (1978) formula as well as the Chervenak et al. (1998).
Results show that all three methods; Fazekas and Kosa (1978), Chervenak et al.
(1998), and Sherwood et al. (2000) produced age estimates that showed a strong
correlation with the known ages that were statistically significant for the Historical Data
Set. The question then arises, which is the most accurate? Looking at R values alone,
the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) method shows a stronger correlation between estimated
ages and known ages. The Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula also had the most evenly
distributed error across the different gestational ages, roughly one-half lunar month as
reported by the authors. For individuals similar to those from the Historic Data Set, the
Fazekas and Kosa (1978) method would be the preferred method for age estimation.
Forensic Data Set

The age estimates produced by the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula for
individuals in the Forensic Data Set showed a weak correlation with the known ages. The
48
R of 0.486 and p-value of <0.01 is evidence that while the relationship between the
estimated ages and the known ages of the individuals is weak, it is statistically
significant. Generally a R less than 0.50 is evidence of a weak correlation. This was
unexpected since the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formula is the traditional method used by
forensic scientists in the determination of fetal skeletal age.
The Fazekas and Kosa (1978) model tended to under-age individuals an average
of 2.611 weeks. The most error in the age estimations were for the 18 week-old and 40
week-old individuals. The 18 week-old individuals were over-aged an average of 4
weeks, whereas the 40 week-old individuals were under-aged an average of 7.5 weeks.
While the average error is close to the one-half lunar month error expected, the error for
the 40 week-old individuals is much higher. The error of the age estimates for the 18
and 40 week-old individuals being much higher than the other gestational ages could be
the result of unusual development in these particular individuals or it may be evidence
that this model is not proficient at estimating ages in this particular group.
The age estimates produced by the Chervenak et al. (1998) formula for the
Forensic Data Set also showed a weak correlation. The R of 0.468 and p-value of <0.01
are evidence that while the relationship between the estimated ages and known ages is
weak, it is still statistically significant.
The Chervenak et al. (1998) model tended to under-age individuals in the
Forensic Data Set an average of 6.050 weeks. The age estimates had the most error for
the 18, 39, and 40 week-old individuals with the highest error being the 39 and 40 weekold individuals. The 39 week-old individuals were under-aged an average of 6.324
49
weeks and the 40 week-old individuals were under-aged an average of 12.189 weeks.
The 40 week-old individuals once again had the most error in age estimations produced
for them.
The age estimates produced by the Sherwood et al. (2000) formula for the
Forensic Data Set showed a weak correlation. The R of 0.468 and p-value of <0.01 are
evidence that the relationship between the estimated ages and known ages is weak
although statistically significant.
The Sherwood et al. (2000) method under-aged individuals an average of 1.780
weeks. The most error in the age estimates were for the 18, 22, and 40 week-old
individuals. The 18 week-old individuals were over-aged an average of 6.7002 weeks,
the 22 week-old individuals were over-aged an average of 4.085 weeks, and the 40 weekold individuals were under-aged an average of 7.446 weeks. It is interesting that once
again the 40 week-old individuals had the greatest error. These individuals had the most
error in age estimates produced by all three of the regression models. This may point to
some unusual development in this group or it may be evidence that these regression
models are not accurate for estimating ages of these individuals in the Forensic Data Set.
The overall results are still interesting even if the correlations are weak. The
Forensic Data Set was under-aged by each of the regression formulae. It was expected
that the Chervenak et al. (1998) method would be the most accurate at estimating ages for
the Forensic Data Set due to their use of normal healthy pregnancies in the development
of their method. It was thought that the Forensic Data Set would contain healthy normal
individuals. Looking at the average error for each formula, 2.611 weeks for Fazekas and
50
Kosa (1978) and 1.780 weeks for Sherwood et al. (2000) versus 6.050 weeks for
Chervenak et al. (1998), it is possible that the Forensic Data Set is not comprised of
healthy individuals. The Fazekas and Kosa (1978) and Sherwood et al. (2000) formulae
were both created using spontaneously aborted fetuses. These methods were far more
accurate at estimating ages for the Forensic Data Set than the Chervenak et al. (1998)
method. This may be evidence of the health of the Forensic Data Set individuals. It
would take further study to determine this and the answer cannot be found within this
research. However, this is something that should definitely be explored. Determining the
health of modern forensic fetal remains would be a crucial step in the process of
developing an accurate age estimation regression formula. It is also possible that the
Chervenak et al. (1998) model produced higher error due to it being ultrasound derived.
This may be evidence that ultrasound derived regression formula are not useful when
using dry bone measurements. This is also something to explore with further research.
The age estimates produced by each of the three regression formulae for the
Forensic Data Set showed a weak correlation. Deciding which of the models is the
preferred method for estimating age in modern forensic fetal skeletal material is not
straightforward. The Chervenak et al. (1998) method produced the most error and is not
perhaps the best method for estimating age in modern forensic fetuses. The Sherwood et
al. (2000) model showed the least amount of error, however the Fazekas & Kosa (1978)
model had the strongest correlation and an expected level of error. Therefore it would
seem that until a better model is developed, the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) model should
continue to be used by forensic osteologists for estimating age on modern forensic fetal
skeletal material.
51
Secular Chan
nge
This study
s
was alsso looking for
fo evidence of secular chhange. It waas expected that
t
thhe estimated
d ages producced by the Fazekas and Kosa
K
(1978)) formula woould over-age the
inndividuals in
n the Forensiic Data Set. This was noot the case, the
t Fazekas and
a Kosa (1978)
m
model
actuallly tended to under-age thhese individuuals. In adddition, when the known ages
a
annd femur len
ngths of bothh sample sets were graphhed, the trenndlines showed no evidennce
of an increasee in femur leength in the modern
m
foreensic fetuses overall (Figgure 15). Thhe
t at 40 weeeks gestatioon, the femuur length of thhe modern forensic
f
fetuses is
grraph shows that
generally sho
orter than thee historical fetuses.
fe
The younger inddividuals, froom 18-28 weeeks
gestation, seeem to have siimilar femurr lengths in both
b
sample sets.
Femur Length in
i mm
Knownn Age in Weeks
omparison of the Historrical Data Seet and the Foorensic Data Set
Figure 15: Co
52
CONCLUSION
This research tested the efficacy of the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) method for fetal
age estimation and compared it to the Chervenak et al. (1998) method and the Sherwood
et al. (2000) method for age estimation. Two data sets from known age fetal and neonate
skeletons were used for testing the age estimation formulae for fetal remains, one
comprised of historical individuals and one comprised of modern forensic individuals.
All three of the regression formulae tested derived estimated ages with a strong
correlation to the known ages in the Historical Data Set. It was determined that the
Fazekas and Kosa (1978) method produced estimated ages closest to the known ages for
the Historical Data Set. None of the regression formulae proved to have a strong
correlation between the estimated ages derived and the known ages of the individuals in
the Forensic Data Set, although the results were statistically significant. It was
determined that the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) formulae produced estimated ages closest
to the known ages of modern forensic fetal skeletal material. This is due to the model
producing an error similar to that acknowledged by Fazekas and Kosa (1978) and it
showing the strongest correlation between the estimated and known ages of individuals.
The results of this research were unable to show any evidence of a secular change in the
body length of fetuses.
This research has shown that the methods readily used by forensic scientists in the
estimation of modern fetal age are not as accurate as one would expect. The use of an
method that produces age estimates without a strong correlation to known age in forensic
cases is alarming since this would have a significant impact on identification and
53
prosecution. A new fetal age estimation regression formula needs to be developed from a
sample of modern fetal skeletal measurements. Meadows and Jantz (1995) called for
up-to-date stature estimation formulae derived from the contemporary population from
which modern forensic cases are drawn for adult stature estimation (p 766). The same is
required for fetal remains. A meticulous study with the detail and precision like that of
the Fazekas and Kosa (1978) researchers would be an amazing asset to forensic
osteologists.
A continued effort, such as those at the Forensic Data Bank and the William M.
Bass III Donated Collection, should be made to develop a database of measurements of
modern fetal skeletal remains. An adequate data set is necessary for any research with
forensic fetal skeletons and would be a benefit to researchers everywhere. It would be
fascinating to re-study these regression models if more data could be added to the sample
set for modern forensic individuals.
54
REFERENCES
Alberman E, Filakti H, Williams S, and Evans SJW. 1991. Early influences on the
secular change in adult height between parents and children of the 1958 birth
cohort. Ann Human Biol 18(2):127-136.
Arey L. 1966. Developmental Anatomy: A Textbook and Laboratory Manual of
Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company.
Attico NB, Meyer DJ, Bodin HJ, and Dickman DS. 1990. Gestational age assessment.
Am Family Phys 41:553-560.
Bagnall KM, Harris PF, and Jones PRM. 1978. Studies on the pattern of ossification in
the long bones of human foetal limgs with some observations on sex and side
differences. J Bone Joint Surgery 60-B:284
Bagnall KM, Harris PF, and Jones PRM. 1982. A radiographic study of the longitudinal
growth of primary ossification centers in limb long bones of the human fetus.
Anat Rec 203:293-299.
Bareggi R, Grill V, Zweyer M, Sandrucci MA, Narducci P, and Forabosco A. 1994. The
growth of long bones in human embryological and fetal upper limbs and its
relationship to other developmental patterns. Anat Embryol 189:19-24.
Birbeck JA. 1976. Metrical growth and skeletal development of the human fetus. In:
Roberts DF, Thomson AM, editors. The Biology of Human Fetal Growth
Volume XV. New York: Halsted Press.
Burdi R, Babler WJ, and Garn SM. 1979. Monitoring patterns of prenatal skeletal
development. Birth Defects: Original Article Series XV(5A):25-38.
Chervenak FA, Skupski DW, Romero R, Myers MK, Smith-Levitin M, Rosenwaks Z,
and Thaler H. 1998. How accurate is fetal biometry in the assessment of fetal
age? Am J Obstet Gynecol 178:678-687.
Chiarelli B. 1977. On the secular trend of stature: A body-constitution interpretation.
Current Anthropol 18:524-526.
Cole TJ. 2000. Secular trends in growth. Proc Nutrition Soc 59:317-324.
Cope I, and Murdoch JD. 1958. The estimation of foetal maturity. J Obstet Gynecol
British Empire 65(1):56-57.
Curran B, and Weaver D. 1982. The use of coefficient of agreement and likelihood ratio
test to examine the development of the tympanic plate using a known-age sample
of fetal and infant skeletons. Am J Phys Anthropol 58:343-346.
55
Davis RO, Cutter GR, Goldenberg RL, Hoffman HJ, Cliver SP, and Brumfield CG.
1993. Fetal biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference,
and femur length a comparison by race and sex. J Reprod Med 38:201-206.
Deter RL, Rossavik IK, Hill RM, Cortissoz C, and Hadlock FP. 1987. Longitudinal
studies of femur growth in normal fetuses. J Clin Ultrasound 15:299-305.
Dilmen G, Turhan NO, Toppare MF, Sekin N, strk M, and Gksin E. 1995. Scapula
length measurement for assessment of fetal growth and development. Ultrasound
in Med & Biol 21:139-142.
Drooger JC, Troe JWM, Borsboom GJJM, Hofman A, Mackenbach JP, Moll HA,
Snijders RJM, Verhulsts FC, Witteman JCM, Steegers EAP, and Joung IM. 2005.
Ethnic differences in prenatal growth and the association with maternal and fetal
characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:115-122.
Falkner F, and Roche AF. 1987. Relationship of femoral length to recumbent length and
stature in fetal, neonatal, and early childhood growth. Hum Biol 59(5): 769-773.
Fazekas I GY, and Kosa F. 1978. Forensic Fetal Osteology. Budapest: Akademiai Kaido.
Gardner E, and Gray DJ. 1970. The prenatal development of the human femur. Am J
Anat 129(2):121-140.
Goldstein RB, Filly RA, and Simpson G. 1987. Pitfalls in femur length measurements. J
Ultrasound Med 6:203-207.
Gray DJ, and Gardner E. 1969. The prenatal development of the human humerus. Am J
Anat 124:431-445.
Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Shah YP, King DE, Park SK, and Sharman RS. 1987.
Estimating fetal age using multiple parameters: a prospective evaluation in a
racially mixed population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156:955-957.
Hamilton WJ, and Mossman HW. 1972. Human Embryology, 4th Edition. Cambridge:
W. Heffer & Sons Ltd.
Hattori K. 1978. Studies on the growth of the Japanese fetuses, Part 2: Growth of the
bones and limbs. Jikeikai Med J 25:41-56.
Henricksen TB, Wilcox AJ, Hedegaard M, and Secher NJ. 1996. Bias in studies of
preterm and postterm delivery due to ultrasound assessment of gestational age.
Obstet Gynecol Surv 51(3):150-152.
56
Herbert-Ray MA. 1997. Human variation in fetal long bones: an allometric approach.
Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Hesdorffer MB, and Scammon RE. 1928. Growth of long-bones of human fetus as
illustrated by the tibia. Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, New
York. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 25:638-641.
Hill AH. 1939. Fetal age assessment by centers of ossification. Am J Phys Anthropol
24(3):251-272.
Hoffman JM. 1979. Age estimations from diaphyseal lengths: two months to twelve
years. J For Sci 24:461-469.
Huxley A, and Jimenez S. 1996. Technical Note: Error in Olivier and Pineaus
regression formulae for calculation of stature and lunar age from radial diaphyseal
length in forensic fetal femains. Am J Phys Anthropol 100:435-437.
Huxley AK. 1998a. Comparability of gestational age values derived form diaphyseal
length and foot length from known forensic foetal remains. Med Sci Law
38(1):42-51.
Huxley AK. 1998b. Analysis of shrinkage in human fetal diaphyseal lengths from fresh
to dry bone using Petersohn and Khlers data. J For Sci 43:423-426.
Huxley AK, and Angevine JB. 1998. Determination of gestational age from lunar age
assessments in human fetal remains. J For Sci 43:1254-1256.
Huxley AK. 2005. Gestational age discrepancies due to acquisition artifact in the
forensic fetal osteology collection at the National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, USA. Am J For Med Path 26(3):216-220.
Issel EP. 1985. Ultrasonic measurement of the growth of fetal limb bones in normal
pregnancy. J Perinat Med 13:305-313.
Jakobovits A, Iffy L, Wingate MB, Slate WG, Chatterton Jr. RT, and Kerner P. 1972.
The rate of early fetal growth in the human subject. Acta Anat 83:50-59.
Jeanty P, Kirkpatrick C, Dramaix-Wilmet M, and Struyven J. 1981. Ultrasonic
evaluation of fetal limb growth. Radiology 140:165-168.
Jeanty P, Dramaix-Wilmet M, van Kerkem J, Petroons P, and Schwers J. 1982.
Ultrasonic evaluation of fetal limb growth. Radiology 143:751-754.
Jeanty P, Rodesch F, Delbeke D, and Dumont JE. 1984. Estimation of gestational age
from measurements of fetal long bones. J Ultrasound 3:75-79.
57
Jones PR, Peters J, and Bagnall KM. 1986. Anthropometric Measures of Fetal Growth.
In: Falkner, F editor. Human Growth: A Comprehensive Treatise, 2nd Edition.
New York: Plenum Press. p255-274.
Kosa F. 1989. Age Estimation From The Fetal Skeleton. In: Iscan MY editor. Age
Markers in the Human Skeleton. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. p21-54.
Krogman W. 1972. Child Growth. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Lim JMH, Hong AG, Raman S, and Shyamala N. 2000. Relationship between fetal
femur diaphysis length and neonatal crown-heel length: the effect of race.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 15:131-137.
Meadows L, and Jantz RL. 1995. Allometric secular change in the long bones from the
1800s to the present. J For Sci 40:762-767.
Meadows Jantz L, and Jantz RL. 1999. Secular change in long bone length and
proportion in the United States, 1800-1970. Am J Phys Anth 110:57-67.
Mehta L, and Singh HM. 1972. Determination of crown-rump length from fetal long
bones: humerus and femur. Am J Phys Anth 36:165-168.
Moss ML. 1955. Relative growth of the human fetal skeleton, cranial and postcranial.
Ann NY Acad Sci 63:528-536.
Moss ML, Noback CR, and Robertson GG. 1955. Critical developmental horizons in
human fetal long bones. Am J Anat 97:155-175.
Noback CR. 1944. The developmental anatomy of the human osseous skeleton during
the embryonic, fetal and circumnatal periods. Anat Rec 88(1):91-117.
Noback CR, and Robertson GG. 1951. Sequences of appearance of ossification centers
in the human skeleton during the first five prenatal months. Am J Anat 89(1):128.
Olivier G. 1977. The secular change in birth height (from 1910 to 1972 in Paris). J
Human Evolution 6:293-296.
Olsen OE, Lie RT, Maartmann-Moe H, Pirhonen J, Lachman RS, and Rosendahl K.
2002. Skeletal measurements among infants who die during the perinatal period:
new population-based reference. Pediatr Radiol 32:667-673.
Olsen OE. 2006. Radiography following perinatal death: a review. Acta Radiologica
47(1):91-99.
58
Owsley D. and Jantz R. 1985. Long Bone Lengths and Gestational Age Distributions of
Post-Contact Arikara Indian Perinatal Infant Skeletons. Am J Phys Anthropol
68:321-328.
Patten B. 1968. Human Embryology 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Panattoni GL, Amelio PD, DiStefano M, Sciolla A, and Isaia GC. 1999. Densitometric
study of developing femur. Calcif Tissue Int 64:133-136.
Quinlan RW, Brumfield C, Martin M, and Cruz A. 1982. Ultrasonic measurement of
femur length as a predictor of fetal gestational age. J Reprod Med 27:392-394.
Rhine, SR. 1995. Forensic foetal anthropology.
Robb R, and Clarke J. 1934. Growth of bone shafts in the human fetus. Proc Soc Exper
Biol Med 31:634-636.
Roche AF. 1980. The measurement of skeletal maturation. In: Jonston FE, Roche AF,
editors. Human Physical Growth and Maturation Methodologies and Factors.
New York: Plenum Press.
Ruvolo KA, Filly RA, and Callen PW. 1987. Evaluation of fetal femur length for
prediction of gestational age in a racially mixed obstetric population. J
Ultrasound Med 6:417-419.
Scheuer JL, Musgrave JH, and Evans SP. 1980. The estimation of late fetal and
perinatal age from limb bone length by linear and logarithmic regression. Ann
Hum Biol 7:257-265
Scheuer L, and Black S. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Scheuer L. 2002. Application of osteology to forensic medicine. Clinical Anat 18:297312.
Sherwood R, Meindl RS, Robinson HB, and May RL. 2000. Fetal age: Methods of
estimation and effects of pathology. Am J Phys Anthropol 113:305-315.
Shipp TD, Bromley B, Mascola M, and Venacerraf B. 2001. Variation in fetal femur
length with respect to maternal race. J Ultrasound Med 20(2):141-144.
Sluder G, and McCollum D. 2000. The mad ways of meiosis. Science 289:254.
Stewart T. 1979. Essentials of Forensic Anthropology. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
59
Sundick RI. 1978. Human skeletal growth and age determination. Homo 29:228-249.
Trotter M, and Peterson RR. 1968. Weight of bone in the fetus: a preliminary report.
Growth 32:83-90.
Ubelaker D. 1987. The Estimation of Age at Death From Immature Human Bone. In:
Iscan MY editor. Age Markers in the Human Skeleton. Springfield: Charles C.
Thomas. p55-70.
Valds-Dapena MA 1979. Histology of the Fetus and Newborn. Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders Company.
van der Harten HJ, Brons JTJ, Schipper NW, Dijkstra PF, Meijer CJLM, and Geijn HP.
1990. The prenatal development of the normal human skeleton: a combined
ultrasonographic and post-mortem radiographic study. Pediatr Radiol 21:52-56.
Walker JM. 1991. Musculoskeletal development: a review. Phys Therapy 71(12):878889.
Warren MW. 1999. Radiographic determination of development age in fetuses and
stillborns. J For Sci 44(4):708-712.
Watkins MA, and German RZ. 1992. Ontogenetic allometry of ossified fetal limb bones.
Growth Dev Aging 56:259-267.
Weaver DS. 1998. Forensic Aspects of Fetal and Neonatal Skeletons. In: Reichs KJ
editor. Forensic Osteology: Advances in the Identification of Human Remains, 2nd
Edition. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. p187-203.
Yeo GSH, Chan WB, Lun KC, and Lai FM. 1994. Racial differences in fetal
morphometry in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 23(3):371-376.
60

Jurnal 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGE ESTIMATION OF FETAL SKELETAL REMAINS FROM

THE FORENSIC CONTEXT

Sanders, Jennifer, M.A., December 2009

Age Estimation of Fetal Skeletal Remains From the Forensic Context

To Mom, Dad, Jeff, Jaymie, and Grandma

III. METHODS AND MATERIALS

Table 1: Definitions of measurements taken.

Table 2: Example of measurements taken of individuals in the

Table 4: Error and bias determination for an individual with a known

Table 7: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the Fazekas 31

Table 9: ANOVA results for Chervenak et al. (1998) age estimations

Table 10: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the

Table 13: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the

Table 19: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the

Table 22: Range of estimated ages and breakdown of bias of the

Figure 2: Example of fetal leg bone diaphyses UTK 16-95D.

Figure 3: Comparison of estimated age using Fazekas and Kosa (1978)

Figure 7: Comparison of estimated age using Sherwood et al. (2000) to

Figure 9: Comparison of estimated age using Fazekas and Kosa (1978)

Figure 10 : Fazekas and Kosa (1978) Error and Bias on Forensic

Figure 11: Comparison of estimated age using Chervenak et al. (1998) to 40

Figure 13: Comparison of estimated age using Sherwood et al. (2000) to

Problem Statement and Thesis Objective

and abdominal circumference measurements were taken. They developed several

Problems with Fetal Age Estimation

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Table 1: Definitions of measurements taken

Figure 1: Example of Femur Measurements: A) Diaphysis length B) Distal width C)

Figure 2: Exaample of fetaal leg bone diaphyses

Table 3: Regression Formulae using the variable Femur Length (FL)

Historical Data Set

Estimated vs Known Age

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00003

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00003

inndividuals att 40 weeks. The most significant diffference betw

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00002

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00002

Sherwood et al. (2000) Historical

Estimated vs Known Age

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00001

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00001

o Historicall Data Set

Forensic Dataa Set

Fazekas and Kosa

Known vs Fazekas & Kosa Age

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00002

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00002

Table 16: Ran

Figure 10 : Faazekas and Kosa

Chervenak et al (1998) Forensic Data Set Results

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00003

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00003

The Chervenak et al. (1998) formula under-aged individuals in the modern

Table 19: Ran

Sherwood et al. (2000) Foorensic Dataa Set Resultss

Known vs Sherwood et al. Age

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00004

a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00004

The Sherwood et al. (2000) formula under-aged individuals in the modern

Historical Data Set

Forensic Data Set

Knownn Age in Weeks

You might also like