ArticleGenome biology2026
Rootless hair as a reliable source of forensic genetic information.
Article in Genome biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The small amount of fragmented DNA present in rootless hair shafts is unsuitable for many assays, including most PCR-based assays. Thus, rootless hair DNA is often overlooked in biomedical and forensic analysis. Here we apply methods for efficient recovery and sequencing of minute quantities of short, fragmented DNA to single human hair shafts. Using this approach, we characterize DNA fragments in hair shafts. Despite the small quantities of fragmented DNA, we find multi-fold genome coverage can be generated from a few centimeters of most hair shafts - enough to generate accurate genotype calls and statistically compelling evidence for identity or non-identity.
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.