Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24234584›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2014

Virtual anthropology and forensic identification using multidetector CT.

F Dedouit, F Savall, F-Z Mokrane, H Rousseau, E Crubézy, D Rougé, N Telmon

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
49.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The current state of forensic imaging - post mortem imaging.International journal of legal medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Contribution of the use of clavicle bone density in age estimation.International journal of legal medicine · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F DedouitService de Médecine Légale, CHU Toulouse-Rangueil, Toulouse Cedex, France.
F Savall
F-Z Mokrane
H Rousseau
E Crubézy
D Rougé
N Telmon
Hôpital Rangueil · FRAMIS - Laboratoire d'anthropologie moléculaire et imagerie de synthèse · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual anthropology is made possible by modern cross-sectional imaging. Multislice CT (MSCT) can be used for comparative bone and dental identification, reconstructive identification and lesion identification. Comparative identification, the comparison of ante- and post-mortem imaging data, can be performed on both teeth and bones. Reconstructive identification, a considerable challenge for the radiologist, identifies the deceased by determining sex, geographical origin, stature and age at death. Lesion identification combines virtual autopsy and virtual anthropology. MSCT can be useful in palaeopathology, seeking arthropathy, infection, oral pathology, trauma, tumours, haematological disorders, stress indicators or occupational stress in bones and teeth. We examine some of the possibilities offered by this new radiological subspeciality that adds a new dimension to the work of the forensic radiologist. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial and involves communication and data exchange between radiologists, forensic pathologists, anthropologists and radiographers.

Indexed as

Multidetector Computed TomographyAutopsyBone and BonesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleForensic AnthropologyHumansMalePaleopathologyTooth

Identifiers

PMID24234584
PMCPMC4067023
OpenAlexW1965953309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.