Error rates in dental microwear quantification using scanning electron microscopy
Error rates in dental microwear quantification using scanning electron microscopy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/sca.4950240307
复制
发表时间：
2002-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Teaford, MF
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grine, FE;Ungar, PS;Teaford, MF
现存灵长类动物的饮食习惯和牙齿微磨损之间存在一定程度的相关性，这使得我们能够对史前饮食进行推断。已使用多种技术来量化微磨损，但每种技术得出的结果的可比性尚未得到证实。此外，迄今为止，微磨损量化中的观察者内部和观察者之间的错误率都没有被记录。我们在这里使用 Microware 4.0 评估观察者内和观察者间的误差，并使用该领域最广泛采用的三种方法评估技术间的可比性。这项研究记录了观察者内的总体错误率约为 7%，观察者间的总体错误率约为 9%。观察者内和观察者间的误差似乎都受到所测量的显微照片性质的显着影响。在任何情况下，不同观察者使用 Microware 4.0 获得的结果都没有显着差异，并且在与任何给定参数相关的显微照片的排序中存在合理程度的观察者间一致性。使用不同定量技术获得的结果差异显着，总体技术间错误率约为 19%。几个变量，包括放大倍数、扫描电子显微镜电压设置和样本-探测器关系的差异，无疑导致了三种方法之间的差异，但我们无法评估它们的相对重要性。微磨损量化允许区分广泛的饮食类别，但在定义种群（或物种）之间的模式差异或记录分类群内季节性减轻的差异时，应考虑观察者内和观察者间误差的幅度。鉴于使用不同方法所引入的误差，我们建议当前的研究人员最好采用一致的技术，例如Microware软件包提供的技术来建立通用的微磨损数据库。
There is a degree of correlation between dietary habits and dental microwear in extant primates, and this has enabled inferences to be made about prehistoric diets. Several techniques have been used to quantify microwear, but the comparability of results derived from each has not been demonstrated. Moreover, neither intra- nor interobserver error rates in microwear quantification have been documented to date. We here assess intra- and interobserver error using Microware 4.0, and evaluate intertechnique comparability using the three methods that have been most widely employed in the field. This study documents an overall intraobserver error rate of about 7%, and an overall interobserver error rate of some 9%. Both intra-and interobserver error appears to be influenced substantially by the nature of the micrograph being measured. In no instance did the results obtained by different observers using Microware 4.0 differ significantly, and there was a reasonable degree of interobserver consistency in the rank ordering of micrographs in relation to any given parameter. The results obtained through the use of different quantitative techniques differed significantly, with an overall intertechnique error rate of approximately 19%. Several variables, including differences in magnification factor, scanning electron microscope kV settings, and specimen-detector relationships undoubtedly contribute to the differences among the three methods, but we were not able to assess their relative importance. Microwear quantification permits distinctions between broad dietary categories, but the margin of intra- and interobserver error should be taken into account when defining pattern differences between populations (or species) or when documenting seasonally mitigated differences within a taxon. In view of the error introduced by the use of different methods, we suggest crest that a consistent technique, such as offered by the Microware software package, be adopted by current researchers to establish a common microwear database.