ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2019
Evaluation of the backspatter generation and wound profiles of an anatomically correct skull model for molecular ballistics.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autopsy findings in victims of gunshot injuries: wound ballistic considerations based on test shots to simulants and composite models.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
- The muzzle to target distance -staining inside different parts of the firearm barrel.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Interpol review of forensic firearm examination 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Nothing but hot air?-On the molecular ballistic analysis of backspatter generated by and the hazard potential of blank guns.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Review
- A distant relationship?-investigation of correlations between DNA isolated from backspatter traces recovered from firearms, wound profile characteristics, and shooting distance.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular ballistics connects the molecular genetic analysis of biological traces with the wounding events and complex forensic traces investigated in terminal ballistics. Backspatter, which originates from a projectile hitting a biological target when blood and/or tissue is propelled back into the direction of the gun, is of particular interest; those traces can consolidate and persist on the outer and inner surfaces of firearms and serve as evidence in criminal investigations. Herein, we are the first to present an anatomically correct head model for molecular ballistic research based on a polyurethane skull replica enclosing tissue-simulating sponge material that is doped with "triple-contrast" mixture (EDTA-blood, acrylic paint, and an x-ray contrast agent). Ten percent ballistic gelatin was used as brain simulant. We conducted contact and intermediate-range shots with a Glock 19 pistol (9 mm Luger), a pump-action shotgun (12/70 slugs), and blank cartridge handguns. Each shot was documented by a high-speed camera at 35,000 fps. Apart from the blank cartridge guns, all gunshots penetrated the skull model and created backspatter, which was recovered from the distal part of the barrels and analyzed. The pistol contact shots and one of three shotgun shots yielded full STR profiles. While the shotgun slugs destroyed the skulls, the remaining models could be used for radiological and optical fracture and wound channel evaluation. Known backspatter mechanisms and their respective timing could be confirmed visually by video analysis. Our complete model setup proved to be well applicable to molecular ballistic research as well as wound channel and fracture pattern investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31338573What 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.