MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416116987 · doi:10.7759/cureus.96603

Prediction of Stature From Percutaneous Anthropometric Dimensions of the Femur and Tibia Among Adult Nigerians

2025· article· en· W4416116987 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Onah Ikpa, Maryam O Raji-Salawu

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNigeriansAnthropometryTibiaFemurPercutaneousEthnic group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Estimating stature, sex, ancestry, and age is central to forensic anthropological profiling, underpinning human identification in medico-legal contexts and mass-casualty events. Skeletal analysis informs these components. Although widely established in developed settings, Nigeria and many developing countries lack robust forensic anthropometric datasets despite rising disaster rates. This study sought to derive population‑specific regression equations to estimate stature from percutaneous femoral and tibial measurements in Nigerians. Regression analysis has proven to be the most straightforward and dependable approach for estimating stature. METHODS: This cross‑sectional observational study was conducted among 255 healthy Nigerian adults (130 males, 125 females; 18-65 years) recruited by stratified random sampling from the University of Lagos and Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria, following ethical approval (approval number: CMUL/HREC/0955/19). Stature, femoral length, tibial length, and femoral bi‑epicondylar width were measured using standardized International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) protocols with calibrated instruments (SECA™ stadiometer (Hamburg, Germany), Rosscraft calipers (Campbell, Canada), and Mitutoyo vernier calipers (Kawasaki, Japan). All measurements were taken by a single investigator at fixed times to minimize bias; intra‑observer reliability was assessed by triplicate readings, with mean values recorded. Bilateral measurements were averaged, and outliers were excluded if attributable to error or implausibility. Data were analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) after normality and regression assumptions were verified, and sex‑specific and pooled regression models were developed to predict stature. RESULTS: The mean height of males was higher than females, reflecting clear sexual dimorphism in stature. Regression analysis demonstrated strong, statistically significant correlations between stature and femoral/tibial dimensions in both sexes. The pooled models yielded high coefficients of determination (R²) with low standard errors of estimate, indicating good predictive accuracy, with tibial length emerging as the most reliable predictor of stature, offering the greatest accuracy across both sexes (males standard error of estimate (SEE) ± 5.08 cm; females SEE ± 16.02 cm), whereas femoral intercondylar width contributed little to predictive value. CONCLUSION: This study establishes a significant correlation between lower limb dimensions and stature, aligning with trends reported in other groups. The dataset generated offers a valuable forensic reference to aid human identification, particularly in contexts involving fragmented or mutilated remains. By providing population‑specific standards, this work enhances the application of lower‑limb metrics in forensic practice within Nigeria. There is a need to broaden research across diverse Nigerian ethnic groups, conduct cross-validation on skeletal remains, and integrate advanced analytical tools to enhance applicability. Also, incorporating artificial intelligence and computational modelling offers further potential to refine accuracy and strengthen cross‑validation of regression models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207