ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2021
Insights to enhance the examination of tool marks in human cartilage.
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 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.
- Signed in bone: Toolmark identification of a machete and multidisciplinary 3D reconstruction in a homicide investigation.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Forensic maceration - A comparative analysis of literature and practical application.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Working out the manner and cause of death using medicine, marks and micro traces - Case report.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Interpol Review Paper of Marks and Impression Evidence 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Review
- Quantitative matching of forensic evidence fragments utilizing 3D microscopy analysis of fracture surface replicas.Journal of forensic sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work deals with the examination of tool marks in human cartilage. We compared the effectiveness of several cleaning methods on cut marks in porcine cartilage. The method cleaning by multiple casts achieved the significantly highest scores (P = 0.02). Furthermore, we examined the grain-like elevations (dots) located on casts of cut cartilage. The results of this study suggest that the casting material forms these dots when penetrating cartilage cavities, which are areas where the strong collagen fibres leave space for the chondrocytes. We performed fixation experiments to avoid this, without success. In addition, 31 casting materials were compared regarding contrast under light-microscope and 3D tool marks scanner. Under the light-microscope, brown materials achieved significantly higher values than grey (P = 0.02) or black (P = 0.00) whereas under the 3D scanner, black materials reached higher contrast values than grey (P = 0.04) or brown (P = 0.047). To compare the accuracy and reproducibility of 6 test materials for cartilage, we used 10 knives to create cut marks that were subsequently scanned. During the alignment of the individual signals of each mark, the cross-correlation coefficients (X
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.