Sex Determination From Hand Dimensions: Preliminary Study

Öz

Objective: Sex determinations is one of the important parameters in identification. In decomposed corpses and skeletal remains, sex determination is quite complicated. Therefore, researchers utilize anthropometric methods in such cases. In this study, the usefulness of hand anthropometry for sex determination was questioned by using three different analysis methods and the superiority of the methods was investigated. Material and Method: Three researchers measured the hand length and width of 221 participants in the study. The measurements were taken using digital calipers, and each participant's hand measurement was recorded twice. Hand index and sectioning point values were calculated based on the measurements. The student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test were used to compare sex groups. Lastly, discriminant analysis was used to evaluate the sex prediction performance of the measurements. The significance level was assumed as p<0.05 in all statistical analyses. SPSS Version 23.0 and the R MVN package were used in the analyses. Results: In the study, significant differences between sex groups were observed across all measurements (95%) and hand type distribution. Sectioning point values were identified as reliable indicators for sex determination, with hand width demonstrating the highest classification accuracy. Discriminant analysis results indicated that the combined use of hand length and width had higher classification accuracy than using hand index alone. Conclusion: Hand measurements can be used as an alternative method for sex determination. In this regard, it has been found that among different statistical methods, discriminant analysis has a higher efficiency in sex determination.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Identification
• hand measurement
• sex determination
• forensic science

El Ölçümlerinden Cinsiyet Tespiti: Ön Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Kimliklendirmede yararlanılan önemli parametrelerden biri cinsiyettir. Cinsiyet tespitini; çürümüş, parçalanmış cesetler ve iskelet kalıntılarında oldukça komplikedir. Bu nedenle araştırmacılar bu tür durumlarda antropometrik yöntemlerden faydalanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, üç farklı analiz yöntemi kullanılarak el antropometrisinin cinsiyet belirlemedeki kullanılabilirliği sorgulanmış ve yöntemlerin birbirlerine göre üstünlükleri araştırılmıştır. Materyal ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya katılan 221 katılımcının el uzunluğu ve genişliği üç araştırmacı tarafından ölçüldü. Ölçümler dijital kumpas kullanılarak yapıldı ve her katılımcının el ölçümü iki kez alındı. Ölçümler ile el indeksi ve ayrım noktası değerleri hesaplandı. Cinsiyet gruplarını karşılaştırmak için student's t-testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi ve Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact testi kullanıldı. Son olarak, ölçümlerin cinsiyet tahmin performansını değerlendirmek için diskriminant analizi yapıldı. Tüm istatistiksel analizlerde anlamlılık düzeyi p<0.05 olarak kabul edildi. Analizlerde SPSS Version 23.0 ve R MVN paketi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmada, cinsiyet grupları arasında tüm ölçümlerde (%95) ve el tipi dağılımında anlamlı farklılıklar gözlenmiştir. Ayrım noktası değerleri cinsiyet belirleme için güvenilir göstergeler olarak tanımlanmış ve el genişliği en yüksek sınıflandırma doğruluğunu göstermiştir. Diskriminant analizi sonuçları, el uzunluğu ve genişliğinin birlikte kullanımının tek başına el indeksi kullanımından daha yüksek sınıflandırma doğruluğuna sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuç: Çalışmada el boyutlarının cinsiyet tespitinde kullanılabilecek alternatif bir yöntem olabileceği gösterdi. Ayrıca çalışmada kullanılan farklı istatistiksel yöntemler arasında diskriminant analizinin cinsiyet belirlemede daha yüksek bir etkinliğe sahip olduğu belirlendi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Identification
• hand measurement
• sex determination
• forensic science

Kaynakça

1. Mastrangelo P, De Luca S, Alemán I, Botella MC. Sex assessment from the carpals bones: discriminant function analysis in a 20th century Spanish sample. Forensic Sci Int. 2011 Mar 20;206:216.e1-216.e10.
2. Dey S, Kapoor AK. Sex determination from hand dimensions for forensic identification. Int J Res Med Sci [Internet]. 2015 Jun;3(6):1466-72.
3. Igbigbi PS, Ominde BS, Agbaze AA. Hand dimensions as predictive tools in gender determination: a Nigerian study. Acta Scientiae Anatomica. 2018 Sep 30;1(1):77–87.
4. Kanchan T, Krishan K. Anthropometry of hand in sex determination of dismembered remains - A review of literature. J Forensic Leg Med. 2011; 18(1):14-7.
5. Bertillon A. Identification Anthropometrique. Hachette Livre; 1885. p.65–73.
6. Davies BT, Abada A, Benson K, Courtney A, Minto I. A comparison of hand anthropometry of females in three ethnic groups. Ergonomics [Internet]. 1980 Feb ;23(2):179-82. DOI: 10.1080/00140138008924731.
7. Imrhan SN, Nguyen MT, Nguyen NN. Hand anthropometry of Americans of Vietnamese origin. Int J Ind Ergon. 1993 Dec ;12(4):281-7. DOI:10.1016/0169- 8141(93)90098-X.
8. Contreras MG, Imrhan SN. Hand anthropometry in a sample of Mexicans from the Us- Mexico border region. Proceedings of the XIX Annual International Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. 2005. pp. 589-593.

9. Karadayı B, Kaya A, Koc H, Varlik E, Ozaslan A. Sex determination for using hand and wrist measurements in Turkish population. Turkish Journal of Forensic Medicine. 2014 Jun 4;28(2):132–40.
10. Sah SK, Jeelani BA. Hand Index- A forensic tool for sexual dimorphism. Journal of Lumbini Medical College . 2019 Jun;7(1):5 pages.
11. Tatarek NE, Sciulli PW. Anthropological analysis of the lower extremity. In: Rich J, Dean DE, Powers RH, editors. Forensic Science and Medicine. Humana Press; 2005.
12. Iscan MY. Forensic anthropology of sex and body size. Forensic Sci Int. 2005 Jan 29;147(2-3):107-12.
13. Kanchan T, Krishan K, Sharma A, Menezes RG. A study of correlation of hand and foot dimensions for personal identification in mass disasters. Forensic Sci Int. 2010 Jun 15;199(1–3):112.e1-112.e6.
14. Williams TJ, Pepitone ME, Christensen SE, Cooke BM, Huberman AD, Breedlove NJ, et al. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404:455-6.
15. Okunribido OO. A survey of hand anthropometry of female rural farm workers in Ibadan, Western Nigeria. Ergonomics. 2000 Feb 10;43(2):282-92.
16. Agnihotri A, Purwar B, Jeebun N, Agnihotri S. Determination of sex by hand dimensions. The Internet Journal of Forensic Science. 2005 Dec ;2(1):3
17. Kanchan T, Rastogi P. Sex determination from hand dimensions of North and South Indians. J Forensic Sci. 2009 Apr 21;54(3):546-50.
18. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Rev. ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1977.
19. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna; 2021. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/
20. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna; 2009. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/
21. Martin R, Saller K. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag; 1957.
22. Korkmaz S, Goksuluk D, Zararsiz G. MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal . 2014 Dec ;6(2):151-62. DOI: 10.32614/RJ-2014-031.
23. Ateş C, Öztuna D, Genç Y. Sağlık Araştırmalarında Sınıf İçi Korelasyon Katsayısının Kullanımı. Türkiye Klinikleri Biyoistatistik Dergisi . 2009 Jul [cited 2023 Mar 15];1(2):59–64.
24. Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology 1904; 15(1): 72–101.
25. Kanchan T, Pradeep Kumar G. Index and ring finger ratio-a morphologic sex determinant in South-Indian children. Forensic Sci Med Pathol . 2010 Dec [cited 2023 Jan 23];6(4):255-60.
26. Box, GEP. A general distribution theory for a class of likelihood criteria. Biometrika, 1949;36:317–46.
27. Krishan K, Kanchan T, Sharma A. Multiplication factor versus regression analysis in stature estimation from hand and foot dimensions. J Forensic Leg Med. 2012 Jan 21;19(4):211–4.
28. Numan AI, Idris MO, Zirahei JV, Amaza DS, Dalori MB. Prediction of stature from hand anthropometry: A comparative study in the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria. British Journal of Medicine & Medical Research. 2013 Jan 10;3(4):1062-73.
29. Laulathaphol P, Tiensuwan M, Riengrojpitak S. Estimation of stature from hand measurements in Thais. SDU Res J. 2013 Jan-Apr [cited 2023 Jan 23];6:1-6.
30. Srivastava A, Yadav VK. Reconstruction of stature using hand and foot dimensions among Indian population. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Emerging Technologies. 2014 Feb;6(4):400-4.
31. Varu PR, Manvar PJ, Mangal HM, Kyada HC, Vadgama DK, Bhuva SD, et al. Determination of stature from hand dimensions. J Med Res. 2015 May-Jun;1(3):104-7.
32. Aboul-Hagag KE, Mohamed SA, Hilal MA, Mohamed EA. Determination of sex from hand dimensions and index/ring finger length ratio in Upper Egyptians. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2011 Jun ;1(2):80-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejfs.2011.03.001.
33. Kumar JSA, Karthikeyan A, Asardueen M. Sex determination from hand dimensions in a South Indian population. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. 2022 Dec 21;17(1):7–12.
34. Mandahawi N, Imrhan S, Al-Shobaki S, Sarder B. Hand anthropometry survey for the Jordanian population. Int J Ind Ergon [Internet]. 2008 Nov-Dec;38(11–12):966–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.01.010.
35. Esomonu PC, Ibeachu PC, Abu EC, Didia BC. Anthropometric sexual dimorphism of hand length, breadth and hand indices of university of Port-Harcourt students. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2011;3(4):146-50.
36. Zahor S. Hand Anthropometry; Sex Determination from Hand Dimensions in Adult Tanzanians. Int J Forens Sci. 2023;8(1):1-6.
37. Cakit E, Durgun B, Cetik O, Yoldas O. A survey of hand anthropometry and biomechanical measurements of dentistry students in Turkey. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries. 2014 Nov-Dec ;24(6):739-53.
38. Bayraktar NK, Ozsahin E. Anthropometric measurement of the hand. East J Med [Internet]. 2018;23(4):298-301. DOI:10.5505/ejm.2018.03164.
39. Uzun O, Yeginoglu G, Kalkısım SN, Ertemoglu Oksuz C, Zihni NB. Evaluation of upper extremity anthropometric measurements in terms of sex estimation. Int J Res Med Sci. 2017 Dec 23;6(1):42-50.
40. Tastan OA.. Hand anthropometry and comparison of these measurements with certain body measurements of 18 -21 years old university students 18 – 21 yaş aralığındaki üniversite öğrencilerinin antropometrik el ölçümleri ve bu ölçümlerin belli vücut ölçüleriyle karşılaştırılması (thesis). [Istanbul]: Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine; 2018. 58p.
41. Bhasin MK, Bhasin V. An anthropological outline. Kamla Raj Enterprises; Delhi, India; 2002.
42. Dey S, Kapoor AK. Hand index: an anthropo-forensic tool for human identification in India. Asian Journal of Science and Applied Technology. 2016;5(2):1-9.
43. Gupta R, Nayyar AK, Gupta MK, Bhagat OL. Forensic tool for sex prediction- hand dimensions. Afr Health Sci. 2022 Dec [cited 2023 Mar 28];22(4):408-12. DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v22i4.46.
44. Jowaheer V, Agnihotri AK. Sex identification on the basis of hand and foot measurements in Indo-Mauritian population - A model based approach. J Forensic Leg Med. May 2011.;18(4):173-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jflm.2011.02.007.
45. Jee SC, Bahn S, Yun MH. Determination of sex from various hand dimensions of Koreans. Forensic Sci Int. 2015 Dec;257:521.e1-521.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.10.014.