ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2020
Heavy metal in radiology: how to reliably differentiate between lodged copper and lead bullets using CT numbers.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Material Approach to Endangered Species Conservation: Characterization and 3D Imaging of Ballistic Damage in the Casques of Helmeted Hornbill (Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- The impact of forensic experience on postmortem CT interpretation in firearm deaths: an interobserver reliability study.La Radiologia medica · 2026Observational
- Photon-counting CT for bullet material differentiation: applications in forensic radiology.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- The current state of forensic imaging - post mortem imaging.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe in situ classification of bullets is of interest in forensic investigations when the bullet cannot be removed. Although computed tomography (CT) is usually performed on shooting victims, visual assessment, or caliber measurements using CT can be challenging or infeasible if the bullets are deformed or fragmented. Independent from the bullet's intactness, x-ray attenuation values (CT numbers) may provide information regarding the material of the bullet.
methodsEthical approval was not required (animal cadavers) or waived by the ethics committee (decedents). Copper and lead bullets were fired into animal cadavers, which then underwent CT scanning at four energy levels (80, 100, 120, and 140 kVp). CT numbers were measured within regions of interest (ROIs). In addition to comparing CT numbers, the dual-energy index (DEI), representing the ratio between the CT numbers of two energy levels, was calculated. The most appropriate method was applied for decedents with fatal gunshot wounds.
resultsCT numbers demonstrated no significant difference between copper and lead bullets, and false classifications can easily occur. DEI calculations revealed significant differences between the two groups of bullets. The 120/140 DEIs calculated from the maximum CT numbers obtained from ROIs at the edge of copper versus lead bullets presented a significant difference (p = 0.002) and a gap between the CT numbers of copper and lead bullets and was successfully applied for the decedents.
conclusionsThis study presents a viable method for distinguishing copper and lead bullets in situ via CT and highlights the potential pitfalls of incorrect classifications.
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.