ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2025
Quantifying the strength of palmprint comparisons: Majority identifications with surprisingly low value.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Indiana fingerprint comparison database.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Do evaluative statements in facial identification overstate the strength of the evidence?Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Friction ridge examiners report conclusions to palm impression comparisons similarly to fingerprint impression comparisons, although several key differences exist. These include an extensive search process in palm impressions, differences in minutiae rarity, and orientation challenges that most fingerprint comparisons do not require. Most US laboratories use a three-conclusion scale that includes Identification, Exclusion, and Inconclusive, which have not been calibrated against the actual strength of the evidence in palmprint comparisons. To measure the strength of the evidence of palmprint impressions, the present work constructs likelihood ratios using an ordered probit model based on distributions of examiner responses in an error rate study. Many likelihood ratios calculated are quite modest and the current articulation scales may overestimate the strength of support for same source propositions by up to five orders of magnitude. These likelihood ratios help calibrate the articulation language and may offer an alternative to categorical reporting scales.
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.