An analysis of FORDISC 3.1 accuracy: estimating population affinity of Asian individuals in America using CT scans
OA Version
Citation
Abstract
This study is an assessment of the popular population affinity estimation software FORDISC 3.1 (Ousley & Jantz 2005a). This software has been popularized in forensic anthropology and is a useful method of population affinity estimation. Other morphoscopic and morphometric approaches are used by forensic anthropologists, however these methods have been found to present difficulties in classifying individuals of groups outside of the tripartite system: African, European, Asian/Native American/Latin American (Plemons & Hefner 2016). This study uses computed tomography scans of 148 individuals of five different demographic groups from the New Mexico Decedent Image Database (NMDID) to assess the accuracy and functionality of FORDISC 3.1 in analyzing a modern United States population. It was suspected that individuals belonging to the Asian American population affinity group would be more likely to be misclassified than any other group, and more specifically, Asian American individuals who were assigned female at birth (AFAB) would be less accurately classified than all other demographic groups. The results of this study indicated that FORDISC misclassified Asian American AFABs and Native American AFABs at a higher rate than any other group. There was also a distinct overclassification of individuals in the sample as Latin American AMABs. These three population affinity groups have been shown through research to be the most consistently inaccurately classified groups (Dudzik & Jantz 2018; Hughes et al. 2018). Asian populations and Latin American populations span large areas, and the lack of research into the genetic diversity within these groups likely is the cause of much of the misclassifications. To address the clear misunderstanding of population affinity in Asian American, Latin American, and Native American populations, more research needs to be done to differentiate the genetic variation and cranial morphology variation within and among these groups (González-José et al. 2008; Scott et al. 2023; Powell & Neves 1999; Willerslev & Meltzer 2021. The field of forensic and biological anthropology has long debated the applicability of population affinity estimates. However, until new non-population specific methods of biological profile estimation become mainstream, more work needs to be done on making the current population affinity estimation methods more applicable to diverse populations.
Description
2025
License
Attribution 4.0 International