{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026731470230862697, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013365735115431349, 'mean_word_length': 4.802816901408451, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Testing Anatomical Methods for Stature Estimation on Individuals from the W. M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection

Abstract:  This study compared eight versions of the anatomical method for stature estimation on a white male sample (n = 34) from the W. M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection. The aim was to evaluate errors in the estimates and to discuss how useful the methods are in forensic context. The average error estimating living stature was less than 1 cm for six of the methods. The correlations between the estimates were high (r = 0.982–0.999). In practice, differences between the versions as well as those between long bone‐based equations and anatomical methods were small. Anatomical method is nevertheless more accurate than long bone regressions when individuals with atypical body proportions are examined.