Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37276607›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2023

Forensic Mass Spectrometry: Scientific and Legal Precedents.

Glen P Jackson, Mark A Barkett

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Glen P JacksonDepartment of Forensic and Investigative Science, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6121, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0803-6254
Mark A BarkettDover Chemical Company, Dover, Ohio 44622, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mass spectrometry has made profound contributions to the criminal justice system by providing an instrumental method of analysis that delivers exquisite analytical figures of merit for a wide variety of samples and analytes. Applications include the characterization of trace metal impurities in hair and glass to the identification of drugs, explosives, polymers, and ignitable liquids. This review describes major historical developments and, where possible, relates the developed capabilities to casework and legal precedents. This review also provides insight into how historical applications have evolved into, and out of, modern consensus standards. Unlike many pattern-based techniques and physical-matching methods, mass spectrometry has strong scientific foundations and a long history of successful applications that have made it one of the most reliable and respected sources of scientific evidence in criminal and civil cases. That said, in several appellate decisions in which mass spectrometric evidence was challenged but admitted, decisions sometimes still went against the mass spectrometric data anyway, which goes to show that mass spectrometric evidence is always just one piece of the larger legal puzzle.

Indexed as

Mass SpectrometryAnimalsCannabisForensic MedicineHumansRadioisotopesRadioisotopes

Identifiers

PMID37276607
PMCPMC10326920

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.