ArticleGenes2023
Comparing Genetic and Physical Anthropological Analyses for the Biological Profile of Unidentified and Identified Bodies in Milan.
Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medico-legal identification of unidentified bodies and missing persons in Milan and Paris: a comparative institutional study.Scientific reports · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When studying unknown human remains, the estimation of skeletal sex and ancestry is paramount to create the victim's biological profile and attempt identification. In this paper, a multidisciplinary approach to infer the sex and biogeographical ancestry of different skeletons, using physical methods and routine forensic markers, is explored. Forensic investigators, thus, encounter two main issues: (1) the use of markers such as STRs that are not the best choice in terms of inferring biogeographical ancestry but are routine forensic markers to identify a person, and (2) the concordance of the physical and molecular results. In addition, a comparison of physical/molecular and then antemortem data (of a subset of individuals that are identified during our research) was evaluated. Antemortem data was particularly beneficial to evaluate the accuracy rates of the biological profiles produced by anthropologists and classification rates obtained by molecular experts using autosomal genetic profiles and multivariate statistical approaches. Our results highlight that physical and molecular analyses are in perfect agreement for sex estimation, but some discrepancies in ancestry estimation were observed in 5 out of 24 cases.
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.