21
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,
ib.
Stature,
cm
Sitting
Head
height, cm circumference,cm
Biacromial
width,cm
__Bi-iliac
width,cm
Calf
circumference, cm
5
85
6%2(2)*
4%2 (1)
36
33°
(2)
(1)
98.8 (1)
100.9 (2)
54.6 (1)
56.0 (2)
48.3 (2)
46.0 (1)
21.6 (1)
22.0 (2)
17.0 (1)
17.8 (2)
22.0 (2)
20.8 (1)
2
91
62 (2)
442 (1)
41.5(2)
34.5 (1)
108.3 (2)
97.4 (1)
60.3 (2)
56.3 (1)
52.7 (2)
49.5 (1)
22.8 (2)
21.6 (1)
18.0 (2)
16.8 (1)
22.6 (2)
21.4 (1)
3
83
6%2 (2)
4%2 (1)
39.5 (2)
38.3 (1}
102.2(1)
104.7 (2)
57.4 (1)
59.5 (2)
49,3 (1)
50.0 (2)
22.3 (-)
22.3 (-)
16.9 {1)
17.0 (2)
22.6 (1)
23.6 (2)
65
86
6%2 (2)
42 (1)
33.0 (2)
29.8 (1)
98.4 (2)
97.0 (1)
55.8 (2)
54.5 (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
62 (2)
4%2 (1)
41.0(2)
35.5 (1)
106.3 (2)
98.6 (1)
59,3 (2)
55.0 (1)
49.3 (2)
48.3 (1)
23.0 (2)
21.6 (1)
17.0 (2)
16.5 (1)
22.4 (2)
21.3 (1)
—
*Numbers in parentheses refer to ranking of each item, (1) indicating the younger child or the smaller measurement
of the pair and (2) the older child or the larger value.
sure to radiation. One boy ( #6) showedless re-
tardation. One boy and onegirl, also aboutthe
same age, were exposedto radiation but did not
show any retardation in bone development.
The height and weight of the one exposed girl
with retarded osseous maturation were consider-
ably 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 boys
with skeletal retardation were taller and one
shorter than the controls (Table 11).
Comparison of the physicalsizes of the children
with retarded skeletal maturation with the physi-
cal 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 childrenfailed to show
satisfactory statural gain during the past two
years, even though in 1958, at the age of 5%
—
Lehre,
Lake:
years, all three had been taller than their younger
Figure 11. Brothers. Left, #5, age 6;
sibs. The difference in age between sib pairs
right, +85, age 4 (1960).
-~
i
Ty dau
*
“
o
:
a UU gu