Table 5. Comparison of classification success from the present study compared to other published research. N indicates dimensions (2D or 3D) and K the number of landmarks utilised (if applicable).
| Publication | Classification type | Classification success | N | k |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balci et al., 2005 (11) | Sex assessment based on morphological scoring of traits of ramus flexure using the method of Loth and Henneberg (1996). | Male: 95.6% Female: 70.6% Overall: 90.6% |
NA | NA |
| Franklin et al., 2007 (19) | Sex assessment from the subadult mandible based on GMM analysis of overall shape | Male: 55% Female: 65% Overall: 59% |
3 | 21 |
| Franklin et al., 2007 (16) | Sex assessment from adult mandible based on GMM analysis of overall shape | Black male: 85.0% Black female: 90.0% Black overall: 87.5% White male: 88.2% White female: 92.3% White overall: 86.7% |
3 | 38 |
| Franklin et al., 2008 (17) | Sex assessment from adult mandible based on linear discriminant functions derived inter-landmark distances from 3D shape capture |
All variables: Male: 83.3% Female: 84.8% Overall: 84.0% Ramus only: Male: 69.2% Female: 81.9% Overall: 75.1% |
3 | NA |
| Kemkes-Grottenthaler et al., 2002 (7) | Sex assessment based on morphological scoring of traits of ramus flexure and gonial eversion using the method of Loth and Henneberg (1996). |
Ramus flexure: Male: 66% Female: 32% Overall: 59%. Gonial eversion: Males: 75.4% Females: 45.2% Overall: 69.3% |
NA | NA |
| Oettlé et al., 2005 (21) | Sex assessment from adult mandible based on GMM analysis of ramus flexure | Male: 67.8% Female: 69.9% Overall: 68.9% |
2 | 11 |
| Oettlé et al., 2009 (22) | Sex assessment from adult mandible based on GMM analysis of gonial eversion | Male: 73.9% Female: 71.4% Overall: 72.7% |
2 | 7 |
| Pretorius et al., 2006 (23) | Sex assessment from adult mandible based on GMM analysis of ramus flexure (component of integrated study) | Male: 67.8% Female: 69.9% Overall: 68.9% |
2 | 11 |
| Schmittbuhl et al., 2001 (13) | Sex assessment from adult mandible based on elliptical Fourier analysis (size effects included in the analysis) | Male: 97.1% Female: 91.7% Overall: 94.4% |
2 | NA |
| Schmittbuhl et al., 2002 (14) | Sex assessment from adult mandible based on elliptical Fourier analysis (size effects normalised in the analysis) | Male: 84.1% Female: 81.2% Overall: 82.7% |
2 | NA |
| Present study | Sex assessment of adult mandible based on GMM analysis of outline of inferior corpus and posterior ascending ramus | Male: 91.0% Female: 94.0% Overall: 92.5% |
2 | 25 |