ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2016
Kinship analysis: assessment of related vs unrelated based on defined pedigrees.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond the Core: The Role of Supplementary Short Tandem Repeats in Forensic Genetics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- The genetic aetiology of male infertility: clinical and forensic implications.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Validation of the Utility of the Genetically Shared Regions of Chromosomes (GD-ICS) Measuring Method in Identifying Complicated Genetic Relatedness.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- The limitations of kinship determinations using STR data in ill-defined populations.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
- Combined effects of multiple linked loci on pairwise sibling tests.International journal of legal medicine · 2017Article
- Comments on "Kinship analysis: assessment of related vs unrelated based on defined pedigrees" by S. Turrina et al.International journal of legal medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed at evaluating whether the adoption of enlarged batteries of STR markers in kinship analysis may provide LR values suitable for discrimination of relatives from non-relatives, in comparison to conventionally used STR panels. The presence of LD among some loci and its effects on LR values were also assessed. Three hundred pairs of related and unrelated individuals, each separated from 1-3 generations and residing in North Italy were genotyped with the Investigator HDplex STR kit (Qiagen), AmpFlSTR Identifiler (Applied Biosystems), and PowerPlex Fusion System (Promega). Loci and alleles shared between each pair and within groups of relatives were compared. Also, combined LR values with and without loci in LD, sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each commercial kit and their combinations. Full siblings displayed the largest number of shared loci and alleles, with a proportion of LR ≥ 10 results significantly higher than other degrees of relatedness and, consequently, with the lowest percentage of inconclusive and false negative results. Only minor differences were detected in the combined LR distributions, after including or omitting loci in LD. However, these became only appreciable when analyzing more distant relative pairs.The implementation of additional STRs into the LR calculation allowed a complete and robust discrimination between relatives and non-relatives only for full siblings, by removing the typical uncertainty of the "grey zone", while this was not achieved among other degrees of relatedness. Furthermore, the presence of loci in LD seems to not significantly affect LR distributions within each generation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26590134What 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.