Sex estimation using external morphology of the frontal bone and frontal sinuses in a contemporary Czech population

  • Markéta ČechováEmail author
  • Ján Dupej
  • Jaroslav Brůžek
  • Šárka Bejdová
  • Martin Horák
  • Jana Velemínská
Original Article


Sex estimation is a task of utmost importance in forensic anthropology and bioarcheology. Along with the pelvic bone, the skull is the most important source of sexual dimorphism. On the human skull, the upper third of the face (i.e., the frontal bone) is one of the most significant sexually dimorphic structures useful in anthropological research, especially when studied by methods of virtual anthropology. This study was focused on sex estimation using the form and shape of the external surface of the frontal bone with or without the inclusion of its sinuses. The study sample consisted of 103 cranial CT images from a contemporary Czech population. Three-dimensional virtual models of the frontal bones and sinuses were analyzed using geometric morphometrics and multidimensional statistics: coherent point drift-dense correspondence analysis (CPD-DCA), principal component analysis (PCA), and support vector machine (SVM). The whole external frontal surface was significantly different between males and females both in form and shape. The greatest total success rate of sex estimation based on form was 93.2%, which decreased to 86.41% after crossvalidation, and this model identified females and males with the same accuracy. The best estimation based on shape reached a success rate of 91.26%, with slightly greater accuracy for females. After crossvalidation, however, the success rate decreased to 83.49%. The differences between sexes were significant also in the volume and surface of the frontal sinuses, but the sex estimation had only 64.07% accuracy after crossvalidation. Simultaneous use of the shape of the frontal surface and the frontal sinuses improved the total success rate to 98.05%, which decreased to 84.46% after crossvalidation.


Frontal bone Frontal sinuses Forensic anthropology Geometric morphometrics Sex estimation Sexual dimorphism 


Funding information

This research was supported by the Grant Agency of Charles University (project no. 1590218).

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants from the contemporary Czech population included in the study.

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Ferembach D, Schwidetzky I, Stloukal M (1980) Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons. J Hum Evol 9:517–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spradley MK, Jantz RL (2011) Sex estimation in forensic anthropology: skull versus postcranial elements. J Forensic Sci 56:289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guyomarc’h P, Bruzek J (2011) Accuracy and reliability in sex determination from skulls: a comparison of Fordisc® 3.0 and the discriminant function analysis. Forensic Sci Int 208:180.e1–180.e6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruzek J (2002) A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. Am J Phys Anthropol 117:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruzek J, Murail P (2006) Methodology and reliability of sex determination from the skeleton. In: Schmitt A, Cunha E, Pinheiro J (eds) Forensic anthropology and medicine: complementary sciences from recovery to cause of death. Humana Press Inc., New Jersey, pp 225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Özer BK, Özer I, Sagir M, Gülec E (2014) Sex determination using the tibia in an ancient Anatolian population. Mediter Archaeol Archaeom 14:329–336Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kemkes-Grottenthaler A (2001) The reliability of forensic osteology – a case in point: case study. Forensic Sci Int 117:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gapert R, Black S, Last J (2009b) Sex detrmination from the foramen magnum: discriminant function analysis in an eighteenth and nineteenth century British sample. Int J Legal Med 123:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caple J, Stephan CN (2016) Photo-realistic statistical skull morphotypes: new exemplars for ancestry and sex estimation in forensic anthropology. J Forensic Sci 62:562–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krogman WM (1962) The human skeleton in forensic medicine. Charles C Thomas Publisher, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pickering RB, Bachman D (2009) The use of forensic anthropology, Second edn. CRC Press, Boca RantonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Byers SN (2015) Introduction to forensic anthropology, Fourth edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams BA, Rogers TL (2006) Evaluating the accuracy and precision of cranial morphological traits for sex determination. J Forensic Sci 51:729–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walker PL (2008) Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. Am J Phys Anthropol 136:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petaros A, Garvin HM, Sholts SB, Schlager S, Wärmländer SK (2017) Sexual dimorphism and regional variation in human frontal bone inclination measured via digital 3D models. Legal Med 29:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis C, Garvin HM (2016) Reliability of the Walker cranial nonmetric method and implications for sex estimation. J Forensic Sci 61:743–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Buikstra JE, Ubelaker DH (1994) Standards for data collection from human skeletal remains: proceedings of a seminar at the field museum of natural history, organized by Jonathan Haas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langley NR, Dudzik B, Cloutier A (2018) A decision tree for nonmetric sex assessment from the skull. J Forensic Sci 63:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garvin HM, Sholts SB, Mosca LA (2014) Sexual dimorphism in human cranial trait scores: effects of population, age, and body size. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ousley S, Jantz R (2013) Fordisc 3: third generation of computer-aided forensic anthropology. Rechtsmedizin 23:97–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gapert R, Black S, Last J (2009a) Sex determination from the occipital condyle: discriminant function analysis in an eighteenth and nineteenth century British sample. Am J Phys Anthropol 138:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ogawa Y, Imaizumi K, Miyasaka S, Yoshino M (2013) Discriminant functions for sex estimation of modern Japanese skulls. J Forensic Legal Med 20:234–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee UY, Kim IB, Kwak DS (2015) Sex determination using discriminant analysis of upper and lower extremity bones: new approach using the volume and surface area of digital model. Forensic Sci Int 253:135.e1–135.e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shearer BM, Sholts SB, Garvin HM, Wärmländer SKTS (2012) Sexual dimorphism in human browridge volume measured from 3D models of dry crania: a new digital morphometrics approach. Forensic Sci Int 222:400.e1–400.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bigoni L, Velemínská J, Brůžek J (2010) Three-dimensional geometric morphometric analysis of cranio-facial sexual dimorphism in a Central European sample of known sex. HOMO 61:16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perlaza NA (2014) Sex determination from the frontal bone: a geometric morphometric study. J Forensic Sci 59:1330–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hochstein LAE (2014) The frontal bone as a proxy for sex estimation in humans: a geometric morphometric analysis. Master Thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical CollegeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Musilová B, Dupej J, Velemínská J, Chaumoitre K, Bružek J (2016) Exocranial surfaces for sex assessment of the human cranium. Forensic Sci Int 269:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bulut O, Petaros A, Hizliol I, Wärmländer SKTS, Hekimoglu B (2016) Sexual dimorphism in frontal bone roundness quantified by a novel 3D-based and landmark-free method. Forensic Sci Int 261:162.e1–162.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fatah A, Shirley N, Jantz R, Mahfouz M (2014) Improving sex estimation from crania using a novel three-dimensional quantitative method. J Forensic Sci 59:590–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dempf R, Eckert AW (2010) Contouring the forehead and rhinoplasty in the feminization of the face in male-to-female transsexuals. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keen JA (1950) A study of differences between male and female skulls. Am J Phys Anthropol 8:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garvin HM, Ruff CB (2012) Sexual dimorphism in skeletal browridge and chin morphologies determined using a new quantitative method. Am J Phys Anthropol 147:661–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosas A, Bastir M (2002) Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. Am J Phys Anthropol 117:236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dalgorf DM, Harvey RJ (2013) Sinonasal anatomy and function. Am J Rhinol Allergy 27:S3–S6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Negus V (1957) The function of the paranasal sinuses. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck 66:430–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reddy UDMA, Dev B (2012) Pictorial essay: anatomical variations of paranasal sinuses on multidetector computed tomography–how does it help FESS surgeons? Indian J Radiol Imaging 22:317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    White TD, Folkens PA (2005) The human bone manual. Elsevier Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Čihák R (2011) Anatomie 1, Third edn. Grada, PragueGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Duque C, Casiano R (2005) Surgical anatomy and embryology of the frontal sinus. In: Kountakis SE, Senior BA, Draf W (eds) The frontal sinus. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Aslier NGY, Karabay N, Zeybek G, Keskinoglu P, Kirai A, Sütay S, Ecevit MC (2016) The classification of frontal sinus pneumatization patterns by CT-based volumetry. Surg Radiol Anat 38:923–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Guerram A, Minor JML, Renger S, Guillaume B (2014) Brief communication : the size of the human frontal sinuses in adults presenting complete persistence of the metopic suture. Am J Phys Anthropol 154:621–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kjær I, Pallisgaard C, Brock-Jacobsen MT (2012) Frontal sinus dimensions can differ significantly between individuals within a monozygotic twin pair, indicating environmental influence on sinus sizes. Acta Otolaryngol 132:988–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Quatrehomme G, Fronty P, Sapanet M, Grévin G, Bailet P, Ollier A (1996) Identification by frontal sinus pattern in forensic anthropology. Forensic Sci Int 83:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim DI, Lee UY, Park SO, Kwak DS, Han SH (2013) Identification using frontal sinus by three-dimensional reconstruction from computed tomography. J Forensic Sci 58:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beaini TL, Duailibi-Neto EF, Chilvarquer I, Melani RFH (2015) Human identification through frontal sinus 3D superimposition: pilot study with cone beam computer tomography. J Forensic Legal Med 36:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lee MK, Sakai O, Spiegel JH (2010) CT measurement of the frontal sinus – gender differences and implications for frontal cranioplasty. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 38:494–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Goyal M, Acharya AB, Sattur AP, Naikmasur VG (2013) Are frontal sinuses useful indicators of sex? J Forensic Legal Med 20:91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sai Kiran C, Ramaswamy P, Khaitan T (2014) Frontal sinus index – a new tool for sex determination. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 2:77–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Benghiac A, Thiel BA, Haba D (2015) Reliability of the frontal sinus index for sex determination using CBCT. Rom J Leg Med 23:275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    da Silva RF, Prado FB, Caputo IGC, Devito KL, Botelho T d L, Júnior ED (2009) The forensic importance of frontal sinus radiographs. J Forensic and Legal Med 16:18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Belaldavar C, Kotrashetti VS, Hallikerimath SR, Kale AD (2014) Assessment of frontal sinus dimensions to determine sexual dimorphism among Indian adults. J Forensic Dent Sci 6:25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Akhlaghi M, Bakhtavar K, Moarefdoost J, Kamali A, Rafeifar S (2016) Frontal sinus parameters in computed tomography and sex determination. Legal Med 19:22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Michel J, Paganelli A, Varoquaux A, Piercecchi-Marti MD, Adalian P, Leonetti G, Dessi P (2015) Determination of sex: interest of frontal sinus 3D reconstructions. J Forensic Sci 60:269–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Luo H, Wang J, Zhang S, Mi C (2018) The application of frontal sinus index and frontal sinus area in sex estimation based on lateral cephalograms among Han nationality adults in Xinjiang (accepted manuscript). J Forensic and Legal MedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kotěrová A, Velemínská J, Dupej J, Brzobohatá H, Pilný A, Brůžek J (2016) Disregarding population specificity: its influence on the sex assessment methods from the tibia. Int J Legal Med 131:251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dupej J, de Lázaro GR, Pereira-Pedro AS, Píšová H, Pelikán J, Bruner E (2018) Comparing endocranial surfaces: mesh superimposition and coherent point drift registration. In: Bruner E., Ogihara N., Tanabe H. (eds) Digital Endocasts. Replacement of Neanderthals by Modern Humans Series. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dupej J, Krajíček V, Velemínská J, Pelikán J, Statistical mesh shape analysis with nonlandmark nonrigid registration. Poster presented at 12th Symposium on Geometry Processing; 9–11 Jul 2014, Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Russell MD, Brown T, Garn SM, Giris F, Turkel S, İşcan MY, Oyen OJ, Jacobshagen B, Pietrusewsky M, Rightmire GP, Smith FH, Turner CH II, Živanović S (1985) The supraorbital torus: a most remarkable peculiarity. Curr Anthropol 26:337–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Bejdová Š, Dupej J, Krajíček V, Velemínská J, Velemínský P (2017) Stability of upper face sexual dimorphism in central European populations (Czech Republic) during the modern age. Int J Legal Med 132:321–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bejdová Š, Krajíček V, Velemínská J, Horák M, Velemínský P (2013) Changes in the sexual dimorphism of the human mandible during the last 1200 years in Central Europe. HOMO 64:437–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Brzobohatá H, Prokop J, Horák M, Jančárek A, Velemínský J (2012) Accuracy and benefits of 3D bone surface modelling: a comparison of two methods of surface data acquisition reconstructed by laser scanning and computed tomography outputs. Coll Anthropol 36:801–806Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Giles E (1964) Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of the mandible. Am J Phys Anthropol 22:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gamba TDO, Alves MC, Haiter-Neto F (2016) Mandibular sexual dimorphism analysis in CBCT scans. J Forensic Legal Med 38:106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kemkes A, Göbel T (2006) Metric assessment of the “mastoid triangle” for sex determination: a validation study. J Forensic Sci 51:985–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Madadin M, Menezes RG, Al Dhafeeri O, Kharoshah MA, Al Ibrahim R, Nagesh KR, Ramadan SU (2015) Evaluation of the mastoid triangle for determining sexual dimorphism: a Saudi population based study. Forensic Sci Int 254:244.e1–244.e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Faculty of ScienceCharles UniversityPrague 2Czech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Software and Computer Science, Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles UniversityPrague 1Czech Republic
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyHospital Na HomolcePrague 5Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations