SOME VARIABLE FACTORS IN THE ADULT SKELETON *
SOME VARIABLE FACTORS IN THE ADULT SKELETON *
复制标题
成人骨骼中的一些可变因素 *
DOI：
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1966.tb43071.x
复制
发表时间：
1966
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
R. R. Peterson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Trotter;R. R. Peterson
人体结构的可变性是一个公认的原则。多年来，解剖学家和体质人类学家一直在从事对特定种群内特定变异频率的统计估计，以及对不同种群之间变异范围的评估，以及可能导致这种变异的遗传和环境因素。出于几个原因，许多这些研究都涉及骨骼：它很容易保存，因此是最合适的和最普遍的解剖结构，用于比较不同时期和环境，此外，骨骼最容易进行定量研究。两个例子，这两个都涉及骨架，可以给出说明使用的统计技术在给定的人口内的变化问题。在第一项研究中，研究了身高与四肢长骨长度之间关系的变化，目的是根据死后检查的长骨长度来估计一个人一生中的身高。早在1888年罗莱提出的结果，一项研究的形式表显示的平均长度，一个给定的骨头从这些尸体有相同的地位。研究对象是50具男性和50具女性法国尸体，年龄范围很广（24至99岁）。几年后（1892年和1893年），Manouvrier检查了Rollet提供的数据，排除了60岁以上的受试者，因为“老年”对躯干长度的影响，留下24名男性和25名女性。在此基础上，他起草了一份表格，给出了这些尸体的平均身高，提出了相同长度的长骨。正如所料，这两种方法不提供可互换的值。在世纪末（1899年）皮尔逊重新审查的数据，从所有的Rollet的情况下统计，以确定回归公式估计身高。皮尔森充分意识到他的研究的局限性，病例的缺乏，年龄对身高的可能影响，以及测量方法的缺乏完善（例如，测量身高时死亡后的时间流逝，以及测量时骨骼的潮湿或干燥状态），并指出他从法国尸体的可用数据中得出的公式应非常谨慎地应用于其他种族。30年后，他非常明确地指出，任何公式在应用于它所来源的种族的骨骼材料时，都可能比应用于第二个种族时更可靠。这一坚定立场的时机是史蒂文森（1929）发表的一篇论文，其中报告了一系列不同的回归公式，这些公式是根据48具北方中国男性尸体得出的，并将结果与皮尔逊从法国数据中得出的结果进行了比较。一个有点不同的方法来解决这个问题是由布莱廷格在1937年。通过测量大量成年早期健康受试者（2400名德国男性，平均年龄26岁）的骨长度和身高，皮尔逊研究中固有的弱点被消除了，但以一定的准确性为代价，因为骨长度必须通过测量浅表骨密度来估计。
Variability in the structure of the human body is a well recognized principle. For many years anatomists and physical anthropologists have been engaged both in the statistical estimation of the frequency of particular variations within a given population and also in the assessment of the range of variation between different populations, together with the possible genetic and environmental factors which may have contributed to such variations. For several reasons many of these studies have involved the skeleton: It is easily preserved and is thus the most suitable and the most generally available anatomical structure for comparisons between different periods of time and environments, and furthermore the skeleton lends itself most readily to quantitative study. Two examples, both of which concern the skeleton, may be given to illustrate the use of statistical techniques in a problem of variation within given populations. In the first of these, the variation in the relationship between stature and the length of the long bones of the limbs was studied with a view to estimating the stature of a n individual during life from the length of the long bones examined post-mortem. As early as 1888 Rollet presented the results of a study in the form of a table showing the average length of a given bone from those cadavers which had the same stature. The subjects studied were 50 male and 50 female French cadavers with a wide age range (24 to 99 years). Some years later (1892 and 1893), Manouvrier examined the data provided by Rollet and excluded those subjects of 60 years of age and over because of the effect of “old age” on the length of the trunk, leaving 24 males and 25 females. On this basis he drafted a table giving the average stature of those cadavers which presented long bones of the same length. As might be expected these two methods d o not provide values which are interchangeable. At the end of the century (1899) Pearson reexamined the data from all of Rollet’s cases statistically to determine regression formulae for the estimation of stature. Pearson was fully aware of the limitations of his study, the paucity of cases, the possible effect of ageing on stature, and the lack of refinement in the measurements (e.g., the lapse of time after death when stature was measured, and the moist or dry state of the bones at the time of measurement), and pointed out that the formulae he had derived from the available data of French cadavers should be applied to other races with great caution. Thirty years later he was to state quite explicitly that any formula may be expected to be more reliable when applied to skeletal material of the race from which it was derived than to a second race. The occasion for this firm stand was the publication of a paper by Stevenson (1929) reporting a different series of regression formulae based on 48 Northern Chinese male cadavers and comparing the results with those obtained by Pearson from the French data. A somewhat different approach to the problem was taken by Breitinger in 1937. By measuring bone length and stature in a large number of healthy subjects in early adulthood (2400 German males, average age 26 years) the weaknesses inherent in Pearson’s study were obviated, but at the cost of some accuracy, since the length of the bones had to be estimated from measurements between superficial bony prominences.