ReviewForensic science international. Genetics2015
U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international standards in forensic DNA.
Review in Forensic science international. Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Move Fast andForensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Comment on "De Novo Reconstruction of 3D Human Facial Images from DNA Sequence".Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Lessons from the "Trial of the Century" and early forensic science efforts: Beginnings of U.S. forensic science and the little-known role of the National Bureau of Standards.Forensic science international · 2026Article
- Moving the Fine Print to the Front Page: Transparent Communication of Facial Genetics Research.Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Article
- The STRidER Report on Two Years of Quality Control of Autosomal STR Population Datasets.Genes · 2020Article
- Publication trends in forensic science research: Friction ridge discipline.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- Assessment of the most reliable sites in mandibular bone for the best deoxyribonucleic acid yield for expeditive human identification in forensics.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
A number of initiatives are underway in the United States in response to the 2009 critique of forensic science by a National Academy of Sciences committee. This article provides a broad review of activities including efforts of the White House National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic Science and a partnership between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create the National Commission on Forensic Science and the Organization of Scientific Area Committees. These initiatives are seeking to improve policies and practices of forensic science. Efforts to fund research activities and aid technology transition and training in forensic science are also covered. The second portion of the article reviews standards in place or in development around the world for forensic DNA. Documentary standards are used to help define written procedures to perform testing. Physical standards serve as reference materials for calibration and traceability purposes when testing is performed. Both documentary and physical standards enable reliable data comparison, and standard data formats and common markers or testing regions are crucial for effective data sharing. Core DNA markers provide a common framework and currency for constructing DNA databases with compatible data. Recent developments in expanding core DNA markers in Europe and the United States are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.