International J. of Healthcare & Biomedical Research, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, October 2012, P: 13-16
“Sexing the femora from Marathwada region using demarcating point method.”
Dr. Shital S Maske*, Dr. Prathamesh Kamble**, Dr. Joshi DS#
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
* Assistant professor, Dept of Anatomy, RCSM Government Medical college, Kolhapur,
** Assistant professor, B. J. Government Medical college, Pune.,
#
Professor and head Anatomy, Dr. SRC Government Medical College, Nanded.
Corresponding author: Dr.Sheetal S.Maske , Mobile: 9423295943
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
ABSTRACT:
Background: There are plentiful evidences that standards of skeletal identification vary among different
populations and these standards need to be revised frequently. The present study was an attempt to set standards
of sex discrimination i.e. demarcating points in the population of Marathwada region of India.
Material & Methods:
For this purpose, total of 368 femora of known sex were studied. 13 different
dimensions like weight, length dimensions, mid shaft dimensions, head- neck dimensions and angles were
measured. The demarcating points for sex discrimination were calculated and percentage of correctly sex femora
using these points was calculated for each parameter. Weight and midshaft dimensions were the best while
head-neck dimensions and angles were the least useful for sex discrimination.
Observation & Results: Present study has given the standards for the sex discrimination from femora which
are obtained from Marathwada region and in future these standards can be used as a reference for the sex
discrimination from this region.
Keywords: sex discrimination, demarcating point, femora, angle of torsion.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
INTRODUCTION:
Violent crimes are on the rise worldwide and India is no exception. Each year hundreds of unidentified bones or
its remains are retrieved in a condition of decomposition. In these situations, the expertise of anatomist is often
utilized to develop the identification profile like age, ancestry, stature and sex of deceased. To predict the sex
accurately, skull and pelvis are the highly reliable skeletal elements. [1, 2] Even though, femur has received a
special attention by researchers for the usage of femur in sex determination. The reason not only being the ease
of defining measurements but also it is the most robust bone in human skeleton and therefore it is most likely to
resist insult and decomposition.
There are plentiful evidences that standards of skeletal identification vary among different populations,
race groups and even with the geographical regions. [3, 4] The same standards cannot be used for other
populations. India is a vast country with a number of different populations but only a few studies pertaining to
femur are available from this part of world. Therefore, in the present study the femur was studied for setting the
standards of sex determination in the population of Marathwada region of Maharashtra, India.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
The present study was conducted on 368 adult human femora of known sex available in Bone bank of a
Government medical college, Aurangabad. Out of 368 femora, 189 were male and 179 were female. All the
femora were dry and only left sided. All the femora were free of damage or deformity and fully ossified
indicating adult bones. Femora with pathological changes i.e. cortical bone deterioration, extreme osteophytic
www.ijhbr.com
International J. of Healthcare & Biomedical Research, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, October 2012, P: 13-16
activity, diffuse osteoarthritis and fracture etc were excluded from the study. Age of the bone was above the age
of epiphyseal fusion.
Following 11 measurements were taken from each femur. The method for the measurements was as
described by Bhasin MK and Singh IP in 1968. [5]
1.
Weight of femur
2.
Maximum length of femur
3.
Physiological length of femur
4.
Length of shaft of femur
5.
Vertical diameter of head
6.
Transverse diameter of head
7.
Circumference of head
8.
Minimum anteroposterior thickness of neck
9.
Anteroposterior diameter of midshaft
10. Transverse diameter of midshaft
11. Circumference of midshaft
Also two more angles, neck-shaft angle and angle of torsion were also measured. The methods used for
measurement of these angles were as described by Anderson JY and Erik T in 1998 [6] and Jain AK et al in
2005 [7] respectively.
Statistical analysis: All the measurements were tabulated and mean, standard deviation and range were
obtained. Demarkating points were calculated as described by Jit and Sahni (1983) [8] and Igbigbi and Msamati
in 2000 [9]. The demarkating points (DP) are defined by the mean of Femoral variable of the opposite sex plus
(male) or minus (female) 3 times its standard deviation. That means, demarkating point of a variable for male
femur is equal to (mean + 3 X SD) of the same variable for female femur. And demarcating point of a variable
for female femur is equal to (mean - 3 x SD) of the same variable for male femur. And subsequently Student’s ttest was applied to each of these 12 parameters.
RESULTS:
Table I shows the range, mean and standard deviation of various parameters of male and female
femora. It also depicts the result of t-test. Table II depicts the Demarkating points of sex discrimination for each
parameter and percentage of femora sexed correctly using the same.
All the parameters except neck shaft angle were significantly higher in male femora as compared to
female femora. Though, neck shaft angle was higher in females but the difference was statistically non
significant. [Table I]
Among the 13 parameters analyzed statistically, the best sex discriminator parameter was weight. Next
best discriminator parameters in the order were transverse diameter of midshaft, Antero-posterior diameter of
midshaft, circumference of midshaft, maximum length of femur and physiological length. Other diameters like
vertical diameter of head, transverse diameter of head, circumference of head and minimum antero-posterior
thickness of neck were showed less percent discrimination of femora. [Table II]
Angles, neck shaft angle and angle of torsion could not discriminate the sex of femur. [Table II]
www.ijhbr.com
International J. of Healthcare & Biomedical Research, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, October 2012, P: 13-16
DISCUSSION:
In the present study, weight of femora was higher in males than female femora. The probable explanation is that
males are having more muscle mass and bulky body. To carry heavy body weight femur bone of males are
heavier. Also it was the best parameter for sex discrimination. Previous studies done by Singh SP and Singh S
1974 [10], Leelavathy N et al 2000 [11], Soni G et al 2010 [12] and Gupta P et al 2010 [13] showed the similar
finding as the present work. Singh SP 1974 [10] calculated demarcating point of weight for femora from
Varanasi region as 456.6 g and 177.9 g, male femora and female femora respectively. While in present study
conducted in Marathwada region of Maharashtra the demarcating points obtained were less than Varanasi study
(347.93 and 164.44 g respectively). This suggests that standards of skeletal identification vary among different
geographical population. The weight of bones might have been affected by diet, climate and other geographical
factors.
In the present study, midshaft dimensions like transverse diameter of midshaft, anteroposterior
diameter of midshaft, circumference of midshaft were significantly higher in males and were good discriminator
of sex. In the midshaft region of femur several muscle are inserted. Males generally use their muscles more
heavily resulting in greater pull at the insertions. Therefore the midshaft dimensions were found to be more in
males as compared to females. This study finding was supported by Dittrick J and Suchey JM 1986 [14] and
Ozer I and Katayama K 2006 [15] in Central California and Japanese populations respectively.
Maximum length and physiological length of femora both these parameters were next best sex
discriminatory parameters after midshaft dimensions. While femoral head and neck dimensions even though
were greater in males but showed less discriminatory power. Less muscular attachments and strain in this region
probably is the reason for this finding.
In the present study, two angles measured, neck shaft angle and angle of torsion of femora, both were
least useful for discrimination of sex. Previously study conducted on Nigerian population by Nwoha PU in
19991 [16] used neck shaft angle for sex discrimination but none of the studies have used angle of torsion as sex
discriminatory tool.
CONCLUSION:
Thus present study concludes that demarcating point method is easy and useful method for sex
discrimination of femora. Using this method, weight of the femur is the single best parameter for sexing
purpose. Next in the order are the midshaft dimensions, length dimensions and head neck dimensions. Neck
shaft angle and angle of torsion were least useful parameters for sexing femora.
Findings of the present study may be useful in medico legal cases for estimation of sex from available
fragmentary femora. This study concludes that there exist geographical population specific differences in the
osteometric measurements of femur.
Present study has given the standards for the sex discrimination from femora which are obtained from
Marathwada region and in future these standards can be used as a reference for the sex discrimination from this
region.
www.ijhbr.com
International J. of Healthcare & Biomedical Research, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, October 2012, P: 13-16
REFERENCES
1.
Loth SR, Iscan MY. Sex determination. In: Siegel J, Saukko PJ, Knupfer GC, editors. Encyclopedia of forensic sciences. Vol 1.
San Diego: Academic Press, 2000; 252–260.
2.
Pons J. Sexual diagnosis of isolated bones of the skeleton. Human Biology, 1955; 27: 12-21.
3.
Steyn M, Iscan MY. Sex determination from the femur and tibia in South African whites. Forensic Sci Int. 1997; 90: 111–119.
4.
King CA, Iscan MY, Loth SR. Metric and comparative analysis of sexual dimorphism in Thai femur. J Forensic Sci, 1998; 43(5):
954-958.
5.
Bhasin MK, Singh IP. Femur, Anthropometry. Bharti Bhawan educational publishers and booksellers, 1st Edition, 1968, pg- 137142.
6.
Anderson J Y and Erik T. Patterns of sexual, bilateral and interpopulational variation in human femoral neck shaft angles.
Journal of Anatomy, 1998; 192: 279-285.
7.
Jain AK, Maheshwari AV, Singh MP, Nath S, Bhargava SK. Femoral neck anteversion: a comprehensive Indian study. Indian
Journal Of Orthopaedics.2005; 39: 137-144.
8.
Jit I, Sahni D. Sexing the north Indian clavicles. J Anat Soc India. 1983; 32 (2): 61-72.
9.
Igbigbi PS and Msamati BC. Sex determination from femoral head diameters in black Malawians. East African Medical Journal,
2000; 77(3):147- 51.
10. Singh SP, Singh S. Weight of the femur – a useful measurement for identification of sex. Acta Anat. 1974; 87: 141-145.
11. Leelavathy N, Rajangam S, Janakiram S, Thomas IM. Sexing of the femora. J Anat Soc India. 2000; 49: 1, 1-6.
12. Soni G, Dhall U, Chhabra S. Determination of sex from femur: discriminant analysis. J Anat Soc India. 2010; 59(2):216-221.
13. Gupta P, Arora AK, Mahajan S, Khurana B, Kaur N, Kapoor SS. Significance of weight and maximum length as an objective
foe sexing of unknown femora a research study in Punjab. J Indian Acad Forensic Med. 2010; 32:1, 25-27.
14. Dittrick J, Suchey JM. Sex determination of prehistoric Central California skeletal remains using discriminant analysis of femur
and humerus. American Journal of Physical anthropology, 1986; 70: 3-9.
15. Ozer I, Katayama K. Sex determination using the femur in an ancient Japanese population. Coll Antropol, 2008; 32 (1): 67-72.
16. Nwoha PU. The collodiaphyseal angle of the femur in adult Nigerians. African Journal of Medical Science. 1991; 20: 143-147.
Submission of manuscript: 15 September 2012
Final acceptance: 4 October 2012
Date of Publication: 18 October 2012
Conflict of interest: Nil, Source of Support: Nil
www.ijhbr.com
International J. of Healthcare & Biomedical Research, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, October 2012, P: 13-16
TABLES
TABLE I: showing range, mean, standard deviations of various femoral measurements of male and
female femora and results of t-test.
Measurement
MALE
Range
FEMALE
Mean ± SD
Range
P value
Mean ± SD
Weight (kg)
185 – 403
300.6 ± 45.4
135 – 335
203.8 ± 48
< 0.0001**
ML (cm)
392 – 493
443.6 ± 22.6
366 – 471
398.6 ± 26.6
< 0.0001**
PL (cm)
390 – 490
440.3 ± 21.1
364 – 467
396.4 ± 26.1
< 0.0001**
LS (cm)
315 – 400
356.7 ± 17.5
296 – 378
320.5 ± 21.8
< 0.0001**
VDH (cm)
39 – 48
43.61 ± 1.9
33 – 46
38.7 ± 3.4
< 0.0001**
TDH (cm)
37 – 48
43.5 ± 2.1
34 – 46
38.3 ± 3.2
< 0.0001**
CH (cm)
130 – 155
139.9 ± 5.7
110 – 158
123.2 ± 10
< 0.0001**
MAPTN (cm)
20 – 31
24.18 ± 2.3
17 – 28
21.1 ± 2
< 0.0001**
APDMS (cm)
21 -32
26.54 ± 2.3
18 -30
23.1 ± 2.1
< 0.0001**
TDMS (cm)
23 – 31
25.9 ± 1.7
20 – 28
23 ± 1.7
< 0.0001**
CMS (cm)
74 – 101
84.2 ± 4.6
66 – 90
74.7 ± 4.9
< 0.0001**
NSA (degree)
114 – 140
125.2 ± 6.2
112 – 138
126.2 ± 2
= 0.5547 NS
AT (degree)
10 – 19
13.9 ± 2.7
9 – 19
12.1 ± 2.8
< 0.0001**
TABLE II: showing the demarcating points for male and female femora and percentages of femora sexed
correctly using the demarcating points.
Measurement
MALE
Demarcating
point
FEMALE
% of femora sexed
Demarcating
correctly by DP
point
% of femora sexed
correctly by DP
Weight (kg)
347.93
64.25% (115/179)
164.44
60.32% (114/189)
ML (cm)
478.45
31.28% (056/179)
375.85
26.63% (056/189)
PL (cm)
474.76
27.37% (049/179)
376.98
21.64% (040/189)
LS (cm)
385.92
8.38% (015/179)
304.32
7.41% (014/189)
VDH (cm)
48.86
0% (0/179)
37.66
10.58% (020/189)
TDH (cm)
47.91
7.82% (014/179)
37.18
12.17% (023/189)
CH (cm)
153.30
7.82% (014/179)
122.75
25.93% (049/189)
MAPTN (cm)
27.22
3.91% (07/179)
17.22
0% (0/189)
APDMS (cm)
29.28
51.19% (097/179)
19.80
48.15% (091/189)
TDMS (cm)
28.02
53.63% (096/179)
20.76
47.82% (090/189)
CMS (cm)
89.59
48.60% (087/179)
70.31
43.37% (082/189)
NSA (degree)
144.61
0% (0/179)
106.52
0% (0/189)
AT (degree)
20.40
0% (0/179)
5.84
0% (0/189)
www.ijhbr.com
International J. of Healthcare & Biomedical Research, Volume: 1, Issue: 1, October 2012, P: 13-16
www.ijhbr.com