ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2016
Ancestry Estimation Using Macromorphoscopic Traits.
Review in Academic forensic pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of ethnicity in the determination of the transverse sigmoid sinus Junction (TSSJ): A prospective hospital-based radiological study in adult Sabah, East Malaysia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- YOLO11m-cls applied to sex and age classification based on the radiographic analysis of the nasal aperture.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Population affinity estimation in forensic anthropology: a South African perspective.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- Patterns of observer error in scoring macromorphoscopic traits for population affinity.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring cranial macromorphoscopic variation and classification accuracy in a South African sample.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Metric evaluation of the anterior nasal spine to estimate sex and population group in South African individuals.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- A bibliometric analysis of research trends for missing persons globally and in East Asia from 2000 to 2021.Forensic sciences research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErrata.2017
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anthropologists have a lengthy history using cranial nonmetric traits to assess biological distances between populations. These concepts were adopted by forensic anthropologists to estimate ancestry at the individual level using population-based human variation. However, this method of estimation must adhere to the Daubert guidelines to be applied in the modern court system. To that end, a set of cranial macromorphoscopic traits have been proffered to generate a methodological approach to the estimation of ancestry that can be empirically tested and verified. Additionally, various statistical frameworks, parametric and nonparametric, have been employed to calculate error rates and provide probabilistic statements of the strength of these estimations. Recent studies have further advanced the reliability and validity of macromorphoscopic trait analysis through reference datasets, validation studies, and demonstrable exploration of the complex population histories impacting human variation between and within populations worldwide.
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.