ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2021
Does the choice of the reference model affect the results of 3D-3D superimposition procedure? A comparison of different protocols for personal identification.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D modeling of the frontal sinus as a contribution tool for human identification - a case report.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of 3D reconstruction of paranasal sinuses for simulated personal identification using Dolphin imaging and mimics software.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- 3D imaging for dental identification: a pilot investigation of a novel segmentation method using an intra oral scanning device.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2025Article
- Forensic skeletal and molecular anthropology face to face: Combining expertise for identification of human remains.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- An exclusionary screening method based on 3D morphometric features to sort commingled atlases and axes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Identification issues in bodies maimed by train fatalities: The role of the forensic pathologist.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023Article
- Article
- Digital pair-matching of iliac bones: pilot study on a three-dimensional approach with models acquired through stereophotogrammetry.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Lateral Cephalograms as Valuable Antemortem Tools in Forensic Identification of Individuals during Mass Disasters: An Orthodontic Perspective.Journal of medical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In literature, 3D-3D superimposition has been widely recognized as a valid method for personal identification. However, very little information is available about possible variability due to differences in protocols of registration of 3D models and calculation of RMS (root mean square) point-to-point distance. Frontal sinuses from 50 CT scans were segmented twice through the ITK-SNAP software and grouped in two samples (1 and 2). Maximum breadth, height and volume were measured. 3D models belonging to the same subject were then superimposed one on each other in 50 matches. In addition, superimposition of 50 random mismatches was performed. For each superimposition, the procedure was repeated four times choosing different reference models both for registration and calculation of RMS. Differences in RMS value among protocols of registration and RMS calculation were assessed through paired Student's t-test (p < 0.05). Possible correlations between differences in RMS among groups and differences in frontal sinus size between the superimposed models were analysed through calculation of Pearson's correlation coefficient (p < 0.05). Results showed that RMS calculation did not yield significant differences according to which 3D model is used as reference; on the other hand, RMS values from registration procedure significantly differ according to which model is chosen as reference, but only in the mismatch group (p < 0.001). Differences in RMS value according to RMS calculation are dependent upon all the three measurements, whereas differences according to registration protocols were significantly related only with the breadth of frontal sinuses but only in mismatches (p < 0.001). In no case, superimpositions of RMS values were found between matches and mismatches. This article for the first time proves that the protocol of registration and calculation of RMS significantly influences the results of 3D-3D superimposition only in case of mismatches.
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.