TECHNICAL NOTE

José I. Muñoz,1 M.D., Ph.D.; Mercedes Liñares-Iglesias,2 M.D.; José M. Suárez-Peñaranda,1,3 M.D., Ph.D.;
Mónica Mayo,1 M.D.; Xoán Miguéns,1 M.D.; María S. Rodríguez-Calvo,1 M.D., Ph.D.; and
Luis Concheiro,1 M.D., Ph.D.

Stature Estimation from Radiographically

REFERENCE: Muñoz JI, Liñares-Iglesias M, Suárez-Peñaranda tween different geographical areas. Also, several studies (4) report
JM, Mayo M, Miguéns X, Rodríguez-Calvo MS, Concheiro L. racial differences in mean adult heights and limb-bone lengths be-
Stature estimation from radiographically determined long bone tween populations. At the time of writing, there is no data in the
length in a Spanish population sample. J Forensic Sci 2001;
46(2):363–366. literature on the Spanish population, and the aim of this study is to
help correct this deficiency by supplying regression equations for
ABSTRACT: The estimation of stature from of a variety of bones estimating the stature of Spanish adults using radiographically de-
is an important aspect of forensic work. In order to obtain reliable termined long bone length.
results, it is important to have comparative data obtained from the
same population group as the skeletal remains. However, lack of up
to date information on the population groups of Southern Europe Material and Methods
makes the estimation of stature from bones in this area subject to
possible error. In this study, the stature of 104 healthy adults from The stature of 104 healthy adults (52 males and 52 females) from
Spain was measured, and an anteroposterior teleradiograph of the Spain, whose ages ranged from 20 to 40 (mean 24.43, standard de-
right lower and the right upper limb of every subject in the study
was made in order to measure the lengths of the femur, tibia, fibula,
viation 3.59) was measured.
humerus, cubitus and ulna. Stature was determined with a measuring rod, placing the person
Pearson’s regression formulae were obtained for both limbs. In in the erect “military” position, barefoot and looking upwards with
males, we found the femur to be the most accurate predictor of the back against a graduated ruler. Stature was obtained by lowering
stature (R  0.851), whereas in females best results were obtained the scaled trap until contact with the uppermost point of the head.
with the tibia (R  0.876).
All measurements were made at the same time to take into ac-
count possible variations in height at different times of the day.
KEYWORDS: forensic science, forensic anthropology, stature es-
timation, bone radiograph, skeletal remains, Spanish population An anteroposterior teleradiograph (from a distance of 2 m) of the
right lower and the right upper limb of every subject in the study
was obtained. Both radiographs were taken with the limbs placed
The estimation of stature from human skeletal remains is a re- vertically; the lower limb in the “military” erect position and the
current problem in forensic science. Although a variety of bones upper limb resting along the body with the individual sitting down.
may be used for this purpose, best results are achieved using the The series examined consisted of radiographs of six long bones
long limb bones (1,2). (humerus, radius, ulna, femur, tibia, and fibula) of every individual
Over the centuries, long term changes in the relationship included in the study.
between bone length and body height have been reported (3), the In order to minimize error in measurements resulting from in-
repercussions of which could influence calculations and lead to er- correct positioning and magnification, a vertical metallic ruler was
roneous conclusions. Skeleton development is influenced by a placed at the right side of the limb at approximately the same
number of factors producing differences in skeletal proportions be- frontal plane as the middle long axis and was included in each ra-
diograph. Thus the maximum possible error is under 1%.
1
Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
The points selected to determine bone lengths were chosen from
2
Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, those which are both easily seen in an a-p radiograph and located
Spain. as near as possible to the frontal plane defined by the ruler: Femur:
3
Department of Pathology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, A first line is drawn between the most distal points of both femoral
Spain. condyles, and a second perpendicular to that crossing the farthest
Received 28 Dec. 1999; and in revised form 20 March and 5 May 2000; ac-
cepted 5 May 2000. point of the femoral head. The femoral length will be the distance
* Supported by GRANT XUGA20807B98 and PGIDT99PXI20808B. Par- between this latter point of the head and the intersection of the two
tially presented as poster at the IAFS meeting, Los Angeles, 1999.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Nov 17 19:36:04 EST 2010
lines (Fig. 1a). Tibia: The distance between the most proximal and
Downloaded/printed by
Copyright © 2001 by ASTM International
363
Univ de los Andes Colombia pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
364 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

the most distal point of the styloid process (Fig. 2b). Ulna: The dis-
tance between the most proximal and internal point of the coronoid
processus and the most distal and internal point of the cubital head
(Fig. 2b).
Radiographic imaging of an object in the path of X-rays is sub-
ject to the law of central projection, and the image thus obtained
depends on the distance between the object and source of energy,

B
FIG. 1—Radiographs showing the reference points used for measure-
ment of femur (A) and tibia and fibula (B).

internal point of the medial condyle and the tip of the medial malle-
olus (Fig. 1b). Fibula: The distance between the most external point
of the fibular head and the tip of the malleolus (Fig. 1b). Humerus:
The distance between the most proximal and external point of the
greater tuberosity and the most distal point of humeral condyle
(this point is more easily determined by drawing a line through the B
distal condyle and trochlea) (Fig. 2a). Radius: The distance be- FIG. 2—Radiographs showing the points used for measurement of the
tween the most proximal and external point of the radial head and
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Nov 17 19:36:04 EST 2010
humerus (A) and radius and ulna (B).
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes Colombia pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 MUÑOZ ET AL. • STATURE ESTIMATION FROM RADIOGRAPHS 365

the alignment of the object, and the distance from the object to the aged between 20 and 40 and our formulae does not necessarily ap-
film. This latter factor causes magnification of the image in rela- ply to younger or more elderly groups.
tion to the size of the original object and increases in proportion Also, differences in measurement of up to 2 to 5 cm according to
to the distance between the object and the film. In living subjects the time of the day have been reported (6), and corporal posture
magnification is inevitably due to soft tissues, and is maximal in may also be of significance given that difference in stature between
the upper femoral region. In addition, different alignments of the physiological and erect positions may be as high as 5 cm (7,8). Ac-
same object produces representations of different sizes. In order cordingly, all subjects were measured at the same time of the day
to minimize both errors (different alignment and magnification), and in the same position.
a metallic ruler was used to define the frontal plane of the middle Calculations were made for individual bones and different com-
long axis of the limbs. binations of two or three bones. In the lower limb, Pearson’s re-
Statistical analysis was made using SPSS 8.0 for Windows, and gression formulae were obtained for each bone, both in males and
a summary of statistics of long bone lengths and stature is shown in females (Table 2). In males, the femur was the most accurate pre-
Table 1. dictor of stature (R  0.851), whereas in females, the best results
The study was made in accordance with the standards of the Fa- were obtained with the tibia (R  0.876). The length of long bones
culty of Medicine Ethical Committee. Informed consent was ob- showed greater correlation with stature in females than in males,
tained from all subjects. probably reflecting the significant contribution of factors others
than limb length, such as the thorax and head in the stature of men.
Results and Discussion These sexual differences in bone correlation with stature could also
In estimating stature various factors should be borne in mind. be attributed to sampling, but the good results of Adjusted R2 sug-
Age is of particular significance because stature increases until gest that the sample size is sufficient.
epiphiseal fusion at 18 to 19 years of age (1), and diminishes after The results obtained with the bones of the upper limb were not
40 years of age (1.6 mm/year) (5). In our study all subjects were quite as good (Table 2). In females, the best results were obtained

TABLE 1—Summary statistics. Mean, minimum and maximum long bone lengths, stature and age.*

Total Female Male

min max mean SD min max mean SD min max mean SD

Age 20.38 40.92 24.43 3.59 20.38 39.09 24.08 3.30 20.47 40.92 24.80 3.86
Stature 146.10 191.10 168.21 9.60 146.10 177.20 161.16 6.23 163.10 191.10 175.26 6.80
Femur 37.50 52.60 45.02 3.10 37.50 48.10 43.04 2.35 40.60 52.60 47.00 2.42
Tibia 29.80 44.00 36.95 2.96 29.80 39.90 35.05 2.26 34.10 44.00 38.85 2.29
Fibula 29.00 41.90 35.18 2.64 29.00 37.00 33.46 1.96 33.10 41.90 36.90 2.06
Humerus 26.70 36.70 30.88 2.27 26.70 32.00 29.19 1.35 29.50 36.70 32.56 1.67
Ulna 19.30 26.50 22.57 1.82 19.30 23.90 21.21 1.06 21.00 26.50 23.94 1.34
Radius 19.90 28.00 23.65 1.98 19.90 25.20 22.18 1.21 22.50 28.00 25.13 1.44

* Stature and length are measured in cm and age in years.

TABLE 2—Regression formulae obtained for lower and upper limbs (both sexes, unknown sex).*

Femur Tibia Fibula Humerus Radius Ulna

Female Equation S  64.01  2.25F S  76.53  2.41T S  69.22  2.74Fi S  51.21  3.76H S  71.87  4.0Ra S  58.30  4.84U
SE 3.270 3.033 3.129 3.620 3.927 3.499
SE () 0.194 0.188 0.223 0.375 0.454 0.459
R 0.854 0.876 0.868 0.818 0.782 0.831
Adj R2 0.725 0.763 0.748 0.603 0.603 0.685
D-W 1.631 1.799 1.867 1.841 1.654 1.865
Cook’s d 0.180 0.214 0.219 0.155 0.29 0.219
Male Equation S  62.92  2.39F S  81.70  2.40T S  72.23  2.79Fi S  72.73  3.14H S  91.22  3.34Ra S  96.068  3.30U
SE 3.605 4.010 3.667 4.336 4.838 5.184
SE () 0.208 0.245 0.249 0.362 0.469 0.538
R 0.851 0.812 0.846 0.776 0.710 0.656
Adj R2 0.719 0.652 0.709 0.594 0.494 0.419
D-W 1.831 1.554 1.672 1.845 1.581 1.422
Cook’s d 0.092 0.211 0.426 0.184 0.109 0.112
Unknown sex Equation S  40.68  2.83F S  59.15  2.95T S  50.70  3.34Fi S  49.83  3.83H S  67.18  4.27Ra S  64.03  4.61U
SE 3.899 4.006 3.807 4.083 4.535 4.621
SE () 0.124 0.133 0.142 0.177 0.225 0.249
R 0.915 0.910 0.919 0.906 0.883 0.878
Adj R2 0.835 0.826 0.843 0.819 0.777 0.769
D-W 1.626 1.94 1.83 1.977 1.573 1.799
Cook’s d 0.068 0.077 0.06 0.173 0.110 0.113

* Stature (S), length of femur (F), tibia (T), fibula (Fi), humerus (H), radius (Ra), ulna (U), in cm. SE: standard error; SE ():  standard error; R: cor-
relation coefficient; Adj R2: adjusted determination coefficient; D-W: Durbin-Watson; Cook’s d: maximum value of the Cook’s distance.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Nov 17 19:36:04 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes Colombia pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
366 JOURNAL OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

TABLE 3—Multiple regression formulae obtained (both sexes, unknown sex).*

Femur Femur-Humerus Humerus-Ulna Tibia-Radius

Female Equation S  68.192 + 0.863F  1.592T S  53.029 + 1.549F  1.420H S  40.749 + 2.024H  2.891U S  70.017 + 1.989T  0.965Ra
SE 2.944 3.158 3.158 2.988
SE (1) 0.447 0.379 0.486 0.325
SE (2) 0.428 0.660 0.617 0.608
R 0.886 0.868 0.878 0.883
Adj R2 0.786 0.753 0.772 0.779
D-W 1.723 1.730 1.631 1.699
Cook’s d 0.163 0.327 0.426 0.209
Male Equation S  60.498 + 1.590F  1.030T S  54.169 + 1.757F  1.182H S  67.413 + 2.550H  1.037U S  76.887 + 1.989T  0.841Ra
SE 3.370 3.409 4.266 3.986
SE (1) 0.360 0.311 0.512 0.399
SE (2) 0.341 0.450 0.636 0.633
R 0.874 0.871 0.789 0.819
Adj R2 0.764 0.759 0.622 0.671
D-W 1.647 1.734 1.781 1.521
Cook’s d 0.096 0.182 0.365 0.154
Unknown sex Equation S  44.479 + 1.567F  1.439T S  38.025 + 1.614F  1.863H S  48.671 + 2.513H  1.858U S  56.421 + 1.937T  1.700Ra
SE 3.543 3.418 3.773 3.712
SE (1) 0.289 0.242 0.349 0.271
SE (2) 0.303 0.331 0.433 0.404
R 0.931 0.936 0.921 0.924
Adj R2 0.867 0.876 0.849 0.854
D-W 1.704 1.72 1.935 1.719
Cook’s d 0.101 0.154 0.208 0.077

* Stature (S), length of femur (F), tibia (T), fibula (Fi), humerus (H), radius (Ra), ulna (U), in cm. SE: standard errors; SE ():  standard error; R: cor-
relation coefficient; Adj R2: adjusted determination coefficient; D-W: Durbin-Watson; Cook’s d: maximum value of the Cook’s distance.

with the ulna (R  0.831), and in males with the humerus (R  References
0.776). 1. Trotter M, Gleser GC. Estimation of stature from long limb bones of
Multiple regression formulae were also obtained. Best results American whites and negroes. Am J Phys Anthropol 1952;10:
were achieved by including three bones (femur, tibia, and humerus) 463–514.
(R  0.936), but a combination of only two bones was an im- 2. Choi BY, Chae YM, Kang HS. Correlation between the postmorten
stature and dried limb-bone of Korean adult males. Yonsei Med JNL
provement on the results obtained from single bones (Table 3). The 1997;38:79–85.
combination of the femur and the tibia showed the best correlation 3. Jantz RL. Modification of the Trotter and Gleser female stature estimation
both in females (R  0.886) and in males (R  0.874). The tables formulae. J Forensic Sci 1992;37:1230–5.
obtained were also useful in cases where sex was unknown. In this 4. Trotter M, Gleser GC. A re-evaluation of estimation of stature based on
case, the fibula was the best single predictor of stature (R  0.919), measurements of stature taken during life and of long bones after death.
Am J Phys Anthropol 1958;16:79–123.
and a combination of both femur and humerus was even better (R 5. Galloway A. Estimating actual height in the older individual. J Forensic
 0.936). Sci 1988;33:126–36.
Testing the goodness-of-fit was made by calculating Cook’s dis- 6. Genovés S. La proporcionalidad entre los huesos largos y su relación con
tance and using the Durbin-Watson method. The results are in- la estatura en restos mesoamericanos. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Mexico DF. 1966.
cluded in Tables 2 and 3, confirming the independence assumption 7. Snow CC, Williams J. Variation in premortem statural measurements
and ruling out the existence of outliers. compared to statural estimates of skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci 1971;
In summary, in order to obtain reliable estimates of stature, 16:455–63.
it is necessary to have access to tables pertinent to the population 8. Arnaud JL. Perspectives Médico-légales d’un approche nouvelle d’esti-
under study, in which case they act as good predictors, mation de la stature par les os longs des membres valable pour les deux
sexes et pour toutes les races. Med Leg Dommage Corpor 1974;7:
particularly for females. Whenever possible, a combination of at 310–3.
least two long bones is preferable. Considering that this work is
based on a radiographical study, reproduction of the results Additional information and reprint requests:
requires strict adherence to the method described. In particular, José Ignacio Muñoz Barús
Instituto de Medicina Legal
when dealing with skeletal remains the points described for each Facultad de Medicina, C/ San Francisco s/n.
bone should be taken into account and not the maximum length Santiago de Compostela, 15705
of the bone. Spain

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed Nov 17 19:36:04 EST 2010
Downloaded/printed by
Univ de los Andes Colombia pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.