Osteometric Sorting of Skeletal Elements from a Sample of Modern Colombians: a Pilot Study

OSTEOMETRIC SORTING OF SKELETAL ELEMENTS FROM A SAMPLE OF MODERN COLOMBIANS: A PILOT STUDY

International Journal of Legal Medicine

Juan Manuel Guerrero Rodríguez[1] (MSc); Lucina Hackman1* (PhD); Wendy Martínez[2], César Sanabria Medina[3] (PhD).

ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL 1

Statistical values from comparisons of tests 1 to 6.

1.Statisticalvaluesfor Test 1

Statistic value / HUMA1 & HUMA / HUMA1 & HUMB
D / 4,4 / 71,37
Ref. Sample SD (N=82) / 5,41 / 5,41
t [calculated as (D-0)/ 5,41] / 0,81327044 / 13,1916162
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 81, 2 tails) / 0,42 / 0,00

Table 1.Statistic values from comparison of humeri.

Statistic value / RADA & RADB / RADA & RADA1
D / 37,81 / 0,2
Ref. Sample SD (N=90) / 4,99 / 4,99
t [calculated as (D-0)/ 4,99] / 7,575763467 / 0,04
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 89, 2 tails) / 0,00 / 0,97

Table 2.Statistic values from comparison of the radii.

Statistic value / ULA & ULB / ULB & ULB1
D / 74,746 / 4,53
Ref. Sample SD (N=74) / 5,93 / 5,93
t [calculated as (D-0)/ 5,93] / 12,54222988 / 0,763044606
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 73, 2 tails) / 0,00 / 0,45

Table 3.Statistic values from comparison of the ulnae from Test 1.

2.Statisticalvaluesfor Test 2

Statistic value / FEMD1 & FEMD / FEMD1 & FEMC
D / 1,69 / 4,65
Ref. Sample SD (N=84) / 4,25 / 4,25
t [calculated as (D-0)/ 4,25] / 0,39734069 / 1,09327469
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 83, 2 tails) / 0,692 / 0,277

Table 14.Statistic values from comparison of the femora.

Statistic value / TIBD1 & TIBD / TIBD1 & TIBC
D / 0,45 / 7,61
Ref. Sample SD (N=92) / 11,42 / 11,42
t [calculated as (D-0)/ 11,42] / 0,03940277 / 0,66634458
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 91, 2 tails) / 0,96 / 0,50

Table 15.Statistic values from comparison of the tibiae.

Statistic value / FIBD1 & FIBD / FIBD1 & FIBC
D / 0,48 / 1,15
Ref. Sample SD (N=84) / 3,97 / 3,97
t [calculated as (D-0)/ 3,97] / 0,1208956 / 0,28964572
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 83, 2 tails) / 0,90 / 0,77

Table 16.Statistic values from comparison of the fibulae.

3.Statistical values for Test 3

Statistic value / ACE & FEME / ACE & FEMF
D / 4,39 / 2,01
Ref. Sample SD (N=92) / 1,18 / 1,18
Ref. Sample Mean / 3,866 / 3,866
t [calculated as (D-3,866)/1,18] / 0,4410 / 1,563
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 91, 2 tails) / 0,660 / 0,1211

Table 7.Statistic values obtained for comparison of skeletal elements of the hip joint.

Statistic value / FEMF1 & TIBE / FEMF1 & TIBF
D / 12 / 5
Ref. Sample SD (N=94) / 1,85 / 1,85
Ref. Sample Mean / 5,06 / 5,06
t [calculated as (D-5,06)/1,85] / 3,74150445 / 0,034
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 93, 2 tails) / 0,0003 / 0,9729

Table 8. Statistic values obtained for comparison of skeletal elements of the knee joint.

Statistic value / TIBE1 & TALE / TIBE1 & TALF
D / 4,66 / 1,66
Ref. Sample SD (N=95) / 1,85 / 1,85
Ref. Sample Mean / 16,03 / 16,03
t [calculated as (D-16,03)/1,85] / 6,144 / 7,764
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 94, 2 tails) / 0,000 / 0,000

Table 9. Statistic values obtained for comparison of skeletal elements of the ankle joint.

4.Statistical values for Test 4

Statistic value / SCAPG & HUMG / SCAPG & HUMH
D / 24,67 / 3,84
Ref. Sample SD (N=91) / 3,69 / 3,69
Ref. Sample Mean / 21,62 / 21,62
t [calculated as (D-21,62)/3,69] / 0,823 / 4,807
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 90, 2 tails) / 0,412 / 0,000

Table 10.Statistic values obtained for comparison of skeletal elements of the shoulder joint.

Statistic value / HUMH1 & ULH / HUMH1 & ULG
D / 18,45 / 11,78
Ref. Sample SD (N=87) / 19,66 / 19,66
Ref. Sample Mean / 2,00 / 2,00
t [calculated as (D-19,66)/2,00] / 0,605 / 3,94
p (from t-distribution, d.f= 86, 2 tails) / 0,546 / 0,0001

Table 11.Statistic values obtained for comparison of skeletal elements of the elbow joint.

5.Statistical values for Test 5

N / 181
Regression model / RADI1= 9,041+(0,752*HUME1)
R / 0,818
F / 164,145
P / 0,000
Std. Error of the estimate / 1,80389
Ref. Sample Mean for Independent variable / 37,8913
Ref. Sample S.D For Independent variable / 3,39545

Table 12.Regression model values for RADI1 (Dependent variable) and HUME1 (Independent variable).

Comparison / t / p
HUM(I) & RAD(I) / 0,346 / 0,73
HUM(J) & RAD(J) / 0,136 / 0,89
HUM(I) & RAD(J) / 2,214 / 0,03
HUM(J) & RAD(I) / 2,915 / 0,00

Table 13.Statistic values of comparison of Humeri and Radii in Test 1.

6.Statistical values for Test 6

N / 191
Regression model / HUME2= 37,262+(0,621*FEMU1)
R / 0,904
F / 395,451
p / 0,000
Std. Error of the estimate / 8,355
Ref. Sample Mean for Independent variable / 424,9684
Ref. Sample S.D For Independent variable / 28,35244

Table 24.Regression model values for HUME2 (Dependent variable) and FEMU1 (Independent variable).

Comparison / t / p
HUM(K) & FEM(K) / 0,631 / 0,53
HUM(L) & FEM(L) / 0,568 / 0,57
HUM(K) & FEM(L) / 6,069 / 0,00
HUM(L) & FEM(K) / 4,915 / 0,00

Table 25. Statistic values of comparison of Humeri and Femora in Test 2.

[1] Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification, University of Dundee (MSI/WTB/JBC Complex, Dow Street - DD1 5EH Dundee, Scotland).

[2] Departamento de Antropología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Avenida Carrera 30 # 45- Bogotá, Colombia).

[3]Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses / Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Antonio Nariño – (Carrera 3 este # 47A-15 - Bogotá, Colombia)

* Corresponding author additional details: (Tel: 01382 386311 – email: )