Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41438803›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2025

Investigative and policy impacts of forensic genetic genealogy in the identification of human remains.

Colby Lasyone, Bruce Budowle, Kristen Mittelman, David Mittelman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Colby LasyoneOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, USA.
Bruce BudowleOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, USA.
Kristen MittelmanOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, USA.
David MittelmanOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification of unidentified human remains (UHRs) is a humanitarian imperative and a critical step in many criminal investigations. Forensic Genetic Genealogy (FGG) combines dense single nucleotide polymorphism testing with genealogical research to attempt to overcome the limitations of traditional forensic methods, particularly in cases involving degraded DNA or lacking reference samples. This study presents a retrospective analysis of 477 UHR cases from North America, all of which resulted in successful identifications. For each case, publicly reported data were analyzed to evaluate pre- and post-identification variables, including biological sex determination, manner of death classifications and case resolution status. Of note, FGG led to a change in manner of death from undetermined to homicide in 7.1 % of applicable cases, thus revealing instances of violent crime that would not have qualified for advanced genetic testing under current policy constraints. In homicide cases, 26.1 % resulted in charges, convictions, or were associated with deceased or serial offenders. These findings underscore the critical role of FGG in restoring identity as well as supporting investigations, uncovering violent crime, and advancing public safety. Yet, current federal policy restricts the use of FGG to cases where homicide already is suspected or determined as the manner of death, excluding many UHRs marked as "undetermined" or "unknown. This restriction risks overlooking solvable cases and delays justice. Expanding access to FGG would close a critical gap in forensic investigations and would deliver outcomes for victims, families, and communities while reinforcing the societal commitment to dignity, respect and accountability for the unknown.

Identifiers

PMID41438803
PMCPMC12719697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.