Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38737990›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2024

Inconclusive decisions and error rates in forensic science.

H Swofford, S Lund, H Iyer, J Butler, J Soons, R Thompson, V Desiderio, J P Jones, R Ramotowski

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Move Fast andForensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Assessing the foundations of forensic identification evidence: A critical examination of proficiency test design and results.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

H SwoffordNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
S LundNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
H IyerNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
J ButlerNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
J SoonsNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
R ThompsonNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
V DesiderioNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
J P JonesNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.
R RamotowskiNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been discussion and controversy relating to the treatment of inconclusive decisions in forensic feature comparison disciplines when considering the reliability of examination methods and results. In this article, we offer a brief review of the various viewpoints and suggestions that have been recently put forth, followed by a solution that we believe addresses the treatment of inconclusive decisions. We consider the issues in the context of

Indexed as

Bayesian reasoningBlack-box studyError ratesForensic scienceInconclusivesLikelihood ratioValidation data

Identifiers

PMID38737990
PMCPMC11087963

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.