ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2025
Quantifying the strength of firearms comparisons based on error rate studies.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Do evaluative statements in facial identification overstate the strength of the evidence?Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Quantifying the strength of palmprint comparisons: Majority identifications with surprisingly low value.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Article
- Quantifying the strength of firearms comparisons based on error rate studies.Journal of forensic sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forensic firearms and tool mark examiners compare bullets and cartridge cases to assess whether they originate from the same source or different sources. To communicate their observations, they rely on predefined conclusion scales ranging from Identification to Elimination. However, these terms have not been calibrated against the actual strength of the evidence except indirectly through error rate studies. The present research reanalyzes the findings of firearms and cartridge case comparisons from error rate studies to generate a quantitative measure of the strength of the evidence for each comparison. We use an ordered probit model to summarize the distribution of responses of examiners and aggregate the data for all comparisons to produce a set of likelihood ratios. The likelihood ratios can be as low as less than 10, which does not seem to justify the current articulation scale that may imply a strength of evidence of 10,000 or greater. This suggests that examiners are using language that overstates the strength of the evidence by several orders of magnitude.
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.