ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2024
Advancements in differentiation between sperm cells and epithelial cells for efficient forensic DNA analysis in sexual assault cases.
Review in International journal of legal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Verification of the persistence of sperm traces under different chain-of-custody conditions. Care pathway and justice for victims of sexual violence and abuse.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Separation and identification of two-individual mixed bloodstains using human neutrophil antigen-1 antibodies.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Identification of the body fluid donors from mixture stains using bulk transcriptomes data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most of the sexual assault casework samples are of mixed sources. Forensic DNA laboratories are always in the requirement of a precise technique for the efficient separation of sperm and non-sperm DNA from mixed samples. Since the introduction of the differential extraction technique in 1985, it has seen significant advancements in the form of either chemicals used or modification of incubation times. Several automated and semi-automated techniques have also adopted the fundamentals of conventional differential extraction techniques. However, lengthy incubation, several manual steps, and carryover over non-sperm material in sperm fraction are some of the major limitations of this technique. Advanced cell separation techniques have shown huge promise in separating sperm cells from a mixture based on their size, shape, composition, and membrane structure and antigens present on sperm membranes. Such advanced techniques such as DEParray, ADE, FACS, LCM, HOT and their respective pros and cons have been discussed in this article. As current-day forensic techniques should be as per the line of Olympic slogan i.e., faster, higher, stronger, the advanced cell separation techniques show a huge potential to be implemented in the casework samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38995400What 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.