ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2025
Identification score for robust and secure identification using ante- and post-mortem skull CT scans.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2025. 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.
- Automatic Personal Identification Using a Single MRI Slice.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Tripartite Inca Bone in Skeletal Remains.Cureus · 2025Article
- Automated identification of unknown decedents: matching postmortem CT images with clinical databases.International journal of legal medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to their unique anatomy, paranasal sinuses have been used for comparative identification between post-mortem CT (PMCT) and ante-mortem CT (AMCT). However, data security issues arise when transferring raw AMCT images of a suspected identity. The aim of this study was to derive and validate an identification score based on CT slices extracted from successive CTs for the identification of subjects. For derivation procedure, we included patients who underwent two successive AMCTs at ≥ 1-year interval (n = 98), and 4 radiologists individually assessed similarity of prespecified CT slices (centered on ethmoid, frontal sinus and Left Semi-Circular Canal). Predictive values were calculated for all combinations of number of readers and slices, and the optimal compromise, termed IDScore, was selected. For validation, we included PMCTs performed between 2018 and 2022 with available comparative head AMCTs (n = 27). For each PMCT, 5 comparison procedures were performed: 1 concordant (with corresponding AMCT) and 4 discordant (with randomly selected AMCTs). Two radiologists evaluated similarity of ethmoid and frontal CT slices with a score ranging from -2 to + 2. IDScore was defined as the sum of these slice scores, averaged between the two readers. In the 135 comparison procedures, IDScore using predetermined thresholds (positive identification for IDScore > + 2, negative identification for IDScore < -1) allowed a perfect discrimination between identical subjects (Sensitivity = 100%, Specificity = 100%). IDScore could be used for remote identification of a subject with no need to access to the complete raw AMCT images, hence helping to overcome ethical and regulatory issues to access AMCT of a suspected identity.Trial registration: F20220729161623 on Health Data Hub, registered on 29 July 2022.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39489873What 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.