Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40418328›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of legal medicine2025

Population affinity estimation in forensic anthropology: a South African perspective.

Thandolwethu Mbonani, Ericka L'Abbé, Ding-Geng Chen, Alison Ridel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Thandolwethu MbonaniDepartment of Anatomy, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. u18059385@tuks.co.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6034-767X
Ericka L'AbbéDepartment of Anatomy, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6722-8814
Ding-Geng ChenDepartment of Statistics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3199-8665
Alison RidelDepartment of Anatomy, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9129-423X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forensic anthropologists face the complex task of estimating population affinity from skeletal remains, a process that involves inferring culturally constructed "social race" from biological tissues, a challenge further complicated by the nuanced distinction between population affinity and "race". The difficulty in making these estimations arises from the complex interplay between social constructs of race, skeletal morphology, and geographic origin. These factors are further influenced by elements such as assortative mating and institutional racism in regions such as South Africa and the United States. The interaction between cultural factors and biological traits raises the question of whether the challenges in estimating population affinity are inevitable or due to a limited understanding of human variation. To address this knowledge gap, this paper presents a review of population affinity estimation in forensic anthropology, with a focus on the South African context. It provides foundational background and historical insights, explores the medico-legal significance of population affinity, and critically evaluates both traditional and emerging estimation methods. By highlighting regional challenges and recent advancements, this review aims to enhance understanding and contribute to ongoing debates in the field. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Forensic AnthropologyRacial GroupsBlack PeopleHumansSouth AfricaForensic anthropologyForensic identificationMorpho-phenotypic traitsPopulation affinitySouth African population

Identifiers

PMID40418328
PMCPMC12354589

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.