Table 13
Comparison of Anthropometric Data (1959) on Children With Retarded
Osseous Development With Those of Their Next Younger Sibs
Subject
No.
Agein
1959, yr
Weight,
lb
Stature,
cm
3
85
6%2(2)*
4%2 (1)
36
33)
(2)
(1)
98.8 (1)
100.9 (2)
34.6 (1)
56.9 (2)
2
Sitting
Head
height.cm circumference,cm
Biacromial
width,cm
Bi-iliac
width,cm
Calf
circumference, cm
48.3 (2)
46.0 (1)
21.6 (1)
22.0 (2)
17.0 (1)
17.8 (2)
22.0 (2)
20.8 (1)
91
4%2(1)
62 (2)
41.5(2)
108.3 (2)
60.3 (2)
52.7 (2)
22.8 (2)
18.0 (2)
22.6 (2)
3
83
6%2 (2)
4%2 (1)
39.5 (2)
38.31)
102.2 (1)
104.7 (2)
57.4 (1)
59.5 (2)
49.3 (1)
30.0 (2)
22.3 (-)
22.3 (-)
16.9 (1)
17.0 (2)
22.6(1)
23.6 (2)
65
86
6412 (2)
4%> (1)
33.0 (2)
29.8 (1)
98.4 (2)
97.0 (1)
55.8 (2)
34.5 (1)
47 2(1)
48.4 (2)
20 8 (1)
22.0 (2)
17.5 (2)
16.6 (1)
20.1 (-)
20.1 (-)
6
84
6%2(2)
$3211)
4.0 (2)
35501)
106302)
98.601)
59.3 (2)
55001;
49 3(2)
48 3(1)
23.0 (2)
YL)
17.0 (2)
16.5 (1)
22.4 (2)
24.3 (Lj
34.5(1)
97-1 (1)
56.301)
49.5 (1)
21.6 (1)
16.8 (1)
21.4 (1)
*Numbers in parentheses refer to ranking of cach mem. il; medicine the vounger child or the smaller measurement
ofthe pair and (2) the alder child or the larger value.
sure to radiation. One boy ( +6) showed less re-
tardation. One boyand onegirl, also about the
Same age, were exposed to radiation but did not
showany retardation in bone development.
The height and weight of the one exposed girl
with retarded osseous maturation were considerably below those of chronological age peers (Table
11). However, measurements on the one exposed
girl with normal bone development (#33) were
not inferior to those of control chronological age
peers. She was slightly smaller than her control
skeletal age peers. For the boys, unfortunately,
there were insufficient control chronological age
peers for calculation of means. Comparison with
skelatal age peers indicated that two of the bovs
with skeletal retardation were taller and one
shorter than the controls (Table 11).
Comparison of the physical sizes of the children
with retarded skeletal maturation with the physical sizes of their sibs brought out another signifi-
cant finding. Three (subjects #3, 5, and 65) of the
five children with skeletal age retardation were
shorter in stature in 1960 than their next younger
sibs (Table 12; see also Figure 11). Increment data
indicated that these three children failed to show
satisfactory statural gain during the past two
years, even though in 1958, at the age of 3%
years, all three had been taller than their younger
sibs. The difference in age between sib pairs
Figure 11. Brothers. Left, #5, age 6;
right, 285, age 4 (1960).