ArticleBiology2021
Forensic Tools for Species Identification of Skeletal Remains: Metrics, Statistics, and OsteoID.
Article in Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- PUMAA: Establishing a protocol for utilizing machine learning in forensic anthropological analyses.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Animal Species and Identity Testing: Developments, Challenges, and Applications to Non-Human Forensics.Genes · 2025Review
- Toward a Species Search Engine: KISSE Offers a Rigorous Statistical Framework for Bone Collagen Tandem Mass Spectrometry Data.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Smart Osteology: An AI-Powered Two-Stage System for Multi-Species Long Bone Detection and Classification Using YOLOv5 and CNN Architectures for Veterinary Anatomy Education and Forensic Applications.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Molecular Determinants of Bone Plasticity Regeneration After Trauma: Forensic Consequences.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- SIRT1 in acute lung injury: unraveling its pleiotropic functions and therapeutic development prospects.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2025Review
- A Review of Histological Techniques for Differentiating Human Bone from Animal Bone.Methods and protocols · 2024Review
- Bone finds and their medicolegal examination: a study from Hesse, Germany.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Article
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Although nonhuman remains constitute a significant portion of forensic anthropological casework, the potential use of bone metrics to assess the human origin and to classify species of skeletal remains has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to assess the utility of quantitative methods in distinguishing human from nonhuman remains and present additional resources for species identification. Over 50,000 measurements were compiled from humans and 27 nonhuman (mostly North American) species. Decision trees developed from the long bone data can differentiate human from nonhuman remains with over 90% accuracy (>98% accuracy for the human sample), even if all long bones are pooled. Stepwise discriminant function results were slightly lower (>87.4% overall accuracy). The quantitative models can be used to support visual identifications or preliminarily assess forensic significance at scenes. For species classification, bone-specific discriminant functions returned accuracies between 77.7% and 89.1%, but classification results varied highly across species. From the study data, we developed a web tool, OsteoID, for users who can input measurements and be shown photographs of potential bones/species to aid in visual identification. OsteoID also includes supplementary images (e.g., 3D scans), creating an additional resource for forensic anthropologists and others involved in skeletal species identification and comparative osteology.
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.