Abstract:

Forensic anthropologists are frequently faced with the challenge of individualizing and sorting commingled remains in a variety of scenarios. A number of protocols have been proposed to standardize the methodological approach to individuating commingled remains, some of which are focused on pair-matching. A recent study by Karell et al. (2016) proposed a virtual method for pair-matching humeri using a semi-automatic procedure that gave encouraging results. With regards to the phalanges, there are only a handful of studies focusing on identifying and siding phalanges, as well as exploring their directional and functional asymmetry. Yet, they are still as important as every other bone when sorting commingled human remains in various situations, such as archaeological common burials and mass graves, commingled decomposed remains resulting from atrocities, accidents or natural disasters. This study investigates a new method for pair-matching, a common individualization technique, using digital three-dimensional models of bone: mesh-to-mesh value comparison (MVC) as proposed by Karell et al. (2016). The MVC method digitally compares the entire three-dimensional geometry of two bones using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm to produce a single value as a proxy for their similarity. The method is automated with the use of Viewbox software 4.1 beta for a simultaneous comparison of all possible pairs. For this study, 515 phalanges from 24 individuals of mixed ancestry were digitized using CT scans and the 3D modeling program AMIRA 5.3.3. The models were also hollowed (internal information of compact and trabecular bone removed) to test the method with simulated surface scan models. The subsequent data-over 73,000 comparisons-were assessed using sensitivity and specificity rates via ROC analysis to indicate how well the automated version of MVC pair-matched phalanges. The best bone in terms of pair-matching was the proximal phalanx of Digit 3 with 87.5% sensitivity and 92.4% specificity rates at a threshold value of 0.488 for the unhollowed bones. The specificity drops slightly (91.1%) when the hollowed models are compared. To compare the performance of the method in all phalanges, the specificity was set to 95%-allowing for a 5% acceptable error-and the adjusted sensitivity was compared. The highest sensitivity, namely 68.8%, was noted for Digit 2 proximal phalanx for both unhollowed and hollowed models. Thus far, our preliminary results indicate that the MVC method performs well when pair-matching phalanges, though it is less accurate than pair-matching other types of bones. The introduction of 95% specificity threshold allows for rejecting pairs in great confidence, which could, for instance, significantly reduce the number of DNA comparisons required for the remaining possible matches. In addition, the similar results obtained from hollowed and unhollowed models indicate that the internal information included in the unhollowed models adds little to the identification of true pairs. This means that if a CT scan is not available, the method could be applied to surface models produced by light and laser scanners as well. While additional work needs to be done to verify these preliminary results, this research has the potential to expand the repertoire of individualization methods.