ReviewiScience2023
Review: Computational analysis of human skeletal remains in ancient DNA and forensic genetics.
Review in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ancient DNA and Human Physiology.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Overlapping application of the forensic DNA analysis workflow to buried late-medieval human skeletal remains.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparative assessment of SNP genotyping assays for challenging forensic samples utilizing ancient DNA methods.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Ancient genomes give insight into 160,000 years of East Asian population dynamics and biological adaptation.Genome biology · 2025Review
- Comprehensive review of understanding ancient dietary habits using modern analytical techniques.Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Big Epidemiology: The Birth, Life, Death, and Resurgence of Diseases on a Global Timescale.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Degraded DNA is used to answer questions in the fields of ancient DNA (aDNA) and forensic genetics. While aDNA studies typically center around human evolution and past history, and forensic genetics is often more concerned with identifying a specific individual, scientists in both fields face similar challenges. The overlap in source material has prompted periodic discussions and studies on the advantages of collaboration between fields toward mutually beneficial methodological advancements. However, most have been centered around wet laboratory methods (sampling, DNA extraction, library preparation, etc.). In this review, we focus on the computational side of the analytical workflow. We discuss limitations and considerations to consider when working with degraded DNA. We hope this review provides a framework to researchers new to computational workflows for how to think about analyzing highly degraded DNA and prompts an increase of collaboration between the forensic genetics and aDNA fields.
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.