ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Population-specific validation of long bone linear discriminant analysis against morphoscopic pelvic methods for sex estimation in contemporary Italian skeletal remains.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sex estimation represents a fundamental step in forensic identification protocols, traditionally relying on morphoscopic pelvic assessment. However, the increasing integration of machine learning approaches and population-specific validation requirements necessitate comprehensive evaluation of alternative methodologies. This study provides the first direct comparison of established morphoscopic methods (Phenice 1969, Bruzek 2002) against a multivariable long bone linear discriminant analysis (LDA) model in a sample of 333 documented individuals from the CAL Milano Cemetery Skeletal Collection. Metric data were preprocessed to address missing values through imputation prior to analysis. The morphoscopic methods achieved high accuracy rates (Phenice: 96.9%, Bruzek: 97.7%) but showed significant exclusion rates due to preservation limitations (32.4% and 2.4% respectively). The long bone LDA model demonstrated comparable performance with threshold-dependent accuracy ranging from 95.2% (0.50 threshold) to 98.1% (0.88 threshold), while maintaining universal applicability across all specimens. Crucially, disagreement analysis revealed method-specific error patterns with minimal overlap in misclassified individuals, supporting complementary rather than redundant diagnostic signals. These findings validate long bones as a reliable alternative for sex estimation in fragmentary remains while establishing population-specific accuracy benchmarks for contemporary Italian forensic applications. The threshold-adjustable probabilistic framework offers operational flexibility for balancing classification certainty against sample coverage requirements.
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.