MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054761460 · doi:10.1520/jfs2004542

Age Ranges of Epiphyseal Fusion in the Distal Tibia and Fibula of Contemporary Males and Females

2005· article· en· W2054761460 on OpenAlexaff
Christian M. Crowder, David Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibulaTibiaMedicineDistal tibiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The range of variation in epiphyseal fusion in North American populations has not been sufficiently established. This significant oversight can lead to exclusion of persons of interest in a forensic investigation. This study evaluates epiphyseal fusion of the distal tibia and fibula in 570 European-, African-, and Mexican-American children and young adults. Radiographs of 270 females aged 9 to 17 and 300 males aged 11 to 20 were analyzed to assess the range of variation of epiphyseal fusion at each age. Results indicate that complete fusion in females occurs as early as 12 years in the distal tibia and fibula. All females demonstrated complete fusion by 16 years with no significant differences between ancestral groups. Complete fusion in males occurs as early as 14 years in both epiphyses. All males demonstrated complete fusion by 19 years. Significant differences in the earliest age of complete fusion showed that African- and Mexican-American males demonstrate complete fusion as early as 14 years in both epiphyses while European-American males do not express complete fusion until 16 years.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207