Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36512692›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2023

Toward Developing Techniques─Agnostic Machine Learning Classification Models for Forensically Relevant Glass Fragments.

Omer Kaspi, Osnat Israelsohn-Azulay, Zidon Yigal, Hila Rosengarten, Matea Krmpotić, Sabrina Gouasmia, Iva Bogdanović Radović, Pasi Jalkanen, Anna Liski, Kenichiro Mizohata and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interpol review of forensic paint, tape, and glass evidence 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

20 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Omer KaspiDepartment of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan5290002, Israel.
Osnat Israelsohn-AzulayToolmarks and Materials Lab, Israel Police HQ, Jerusalem9720045, Israel.
Zidon YigalToolmarks and Materials Lab, Israel Police HQ, Jerusalem9720045, Israel.
Hila RosengartenToolmarks and Materials Lab, Israel Police HQ, Jerusalem9720045, Israel.
Matea KrmpotićLaboratory for Ion Beam Interactions, Division of Experimental Physics, Rud̵er Bošković Institute, Bijenička cesta 54, ZagrebHR-10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-5118-217X
Sabrina GouasmiaLaboratory for Ion Beam Interactions, Division of Experimental Physics, Rud̵er Bošković Institute, Bijenička cesta 54, ZagrebHR-10000, Croatia.
Iva Bogdanović RadovićLaboratory for Ion Beam Interactions, Division of Experimental Physics, Rud̵er Bošković Institute, Bijenička cesta 54, ZagrebHR-10000, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-4100-736X
Pasi JalkanenDepartment of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 43, HelsinkiFI-00014, Finland.
Anna LiskiDepartment of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 43, HelsinkiFI-00014, Finland.
Kenichiro MizohataDepartment of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 43, HelsinkiFI-00014, Finland.
Jyrki RäisänenDepartment of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 43, HelsinkiFI-00014, Finland.
Zsolt KasztovszkyCentre for Energy Research, Konkoly-Thege Miklós út 29-33, Budapest1121, Hungary.
Ildikó HarsányiCentre for Energy Research, Konkoly-Thege Miklós út 29-33, Budapest1121, Hungary.
Raghunath AcharyaRadiochemistry Division, BARC, Trombay, Mumbai400085, India.
Pradeep K PujariRadiochemistry Division, BARC, Trombay, Mumbai400085, India.ORCID 0000-0003-1568-4065
Molnár MihályInternational Radiocarbon AMS Competence and Training Center, ATOMKI, Debrecen4026, Hungary.
Mihaly BraunLaboratory of Climatology and Environmental Physics (ICER), ATOMKI, Debrecen4026, Hungary.
Nahum ShabiBar Ilan Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan5290002, Israel.
Olga GirshevitzBar Ilan Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan5290002, Israel.
Hanoch SenderowitzDepartment of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan5290002, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-0076-1355
Bar-Ilan University · ILUniversity of Helsinki · FIRuđer Bošković Institute · HRBhabha Atomic Research Centre · INHUN-REN Centre for Energy Research · HUHUN-REN Institute for Nuclear Research · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glass fragments found in crime scenes may constitute important forensic evidence when properly analyzed, for example, to determine their origin. This analysis could be greatly helped by having a large and diverse database of glass fragments and by using it for constructing reliable machine learning (ML)-based glass classification models. Ideally, the samples that make up this database should be analyzed by a single accurate and standardized analytical technique. However, due to differences in equipment across laboratories, this is not feasible. With this in mind, in this work, we investigated if and how measurement performed at different laboratories on the same set of glass fragments could be combined in the context of ML. First, we demonstrated that elemental analysis methods such as particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE), laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS), scanning electron microscopy with energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM-EDS), particle-induced Gamma-ray emission (PIGE), instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA), and prompt Gamma-ray neutron activation analysis (PGAA) could each produce lab-specific ML-based classification models. Next, we determined rules for the successful combinations of data from different laboratories and techniques and demonstrated that when followed, they give rise to improved models, and conversely, poor combinations will lead to poor-performing models. Thus, the combination of PIXE and LA-ICP-MS improves the performances by ∼10-15%, while combining PGAA with other techniques provides poorer performances in comparison with the lab-specific models. Finally, we demonstrated that the poor performances of the SEM-EDS technique, still in use by law enforcement agencies, could be greatly improved by replacing SEM-EDS measurements for Fe and Ca by PIXE measurements for these elements. These findings suggest a process whereby forensic laboratories using different elemental analysis techniques could upload their data into a unified database and get reliable classification based on lab-agnostic models. This in turn brings us closer to a more exhaustive extraction of information from glass fragment evidence and furthermore may form the basis for international-wide collaboration between law enforcement agencies.

Indexed as

Glass

Identifiers

PMID36512692
PMCPMC9832481
OpenAlexW4311263231

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.