Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27841004›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2017

Forensically relevant SNaPshot

Bhavik Mehta, Runa Daniel, Chris Phillips, Dennis McNevin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of legal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A multi-level overview of the hair decomposition process.International journal of legal medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Evaluation of loci to predict ear morphology using two SNaPshot assays.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023
    Article
  17. DNA and protein analyses of hair in forensic genetics.International journal of legal medicine · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bhavik MehtaNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology and Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia. bhavik.mehta@hotmail.com.
Runa DanielOffice of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, Macleod, VIC, 3079, Australia.
Chris PhillipsForensic Genetics Unit, Institute of Forensic Sciences, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Dennis McNevinNational Centre for Forensic Studies, Faculty of Education, Science, Technology and Mathematics (ESTeM), University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.
University of Canberra · AUUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESVictoria Police · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Short tandem repeats are the gold standard for human identification but are not informative for forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP). Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as genetic markers can be applied to both identification and FDP. The concept of DNA intelligence emerged with the potential for SNPs to infer biogeographical ancestry (BGA) and externally visible characteristics (EVCs), which together enable the FDP process. For more than a decade, the SNaPshot

Indexed as

Electrophoresis, CapillaryPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnimalsBacteriaBlood Grouping and CrossmatchingChromosomes, Human, YConservation of Natural ResourcesDNAEndangered SpeciesEye ColorForensic GeneticsGenetics, PopulationGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansDNACapillary electrophoresis (CE)DNA intelligenceForensic DNA phenotyping (FDP)Forensic genotypingSingle-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)SNaPshot

Identifiers

PMID27841004
OpenAlexW2556597140

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.