Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35643723›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Multivariate statistical approach and machine learning for the evaluation of biogeographical ancestry inference in the forensic field.

Eugenio Alladio, Brando Poggiali, Giulia Cosenza, Elena Pilli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Artificial intelligence in forensic medicine and forensic dentistry.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Eugenio AlladioDepartment of Chemistry, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Brando PoggialiDepartment of Biology, Forensic Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Giulia CosenzaDepartment of Biology, Forensic Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Elena PilliDepartment of Biology, Forensic Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. elena.pilli@unifi.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The biogeographical ancestry (BGA) of a trace or a person/skeleton refers to the component of ethnicity, constituted of biological and cultural elements, that is biologically determined. Nowadays, many individuals are interested in exploring their genealogy, and the capability to distinguish biogeographic information about population groups and subgroups via DNA analysis plays an essential role in several fields such as in forensics. In fact, for investigative and intelligence purposes, it is beneficial to inference the biogeographical origins of perpetrators of crimes or victims of unsolved cold cases when no reference profile from perpetrators or database hits for comparative purposes are available. Current approaches for biogeographical ancestry estimation using SNPs data are usually based on PCA and Structure software. The present study provides an alternative method that involves multivariate data analysis and machine learning strategies to evaluate BGA discriminating power of unknown samples using different commercial panels. Starting from 1000 Genomes project, Simons Genome Diversity Project and Human Genome Diversity Project datasets involving African, American, Asian, European and Oceania individuals, and moving towards further and more geographically restricted populations, powerful multivariate techniques such as Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) and machine learning techniques such as XGBoost were employed, and their discriminating power was compared. PLS-DA method provided more robust classifications than XGBoost method, showing that the adopted approach might be an interesting tool for forensic experts to infer BGA information from the DNA profile of unknown individuals, but also highlighting that the commercial forensic panels could be inadequate to discriminate populations at intra-continental level.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationRacial GroupsForensic GeneticsGenotypeHumansMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID35643723
PMCPMC9148302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.