ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Comparing an Indian dataset with BioAlder using Demirjian's staging of the third molar.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated third molar development in a northern Indian dataset from Uttar Pradesh (UP) using Demirjian staging and compared the results with another northern Indian dataset from Rajasthan (RS) and with the BioAlder model. The inter-rater reliability in the UP dataset was assessed using linear weighted Cohen's kappa and showed strong agreement. Development patterns were compared conditional on age to avoid age-mimicry bias: UP versus RS was assessed using age-stratified Fisher's exact tests and an overall ordinal-regression likelihood ratio test, and UP versus BioAlder was assessed using G-tests across all ages and within age groups. The UP versus RS datasets differed significantly overall, but age-specific differences were confined to isolated ages (12 years in males and 13 years in females). In contrast, UP diverged substantially from BioAlder, including higher stage H probabilities around age 18. Using Bayesian inversion with identical uniform age priors, the UP model yielded two- to threefold higher probabilities of being below key forensic thresholds than BioAlder: P(Age < 16|G) and P(Age < 18|H). These findings indicate that direct application of BioAlder to this Indian dataset would systematically underestimate the probability of being underage, increasing the risk of classifying minors as adults. For stage H, posterior probabilities were highly sensitive to the prior's upper age bound; in our analysis, the upper bound had a greater impact on the resulting probabilities than the difference between the reference datasets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42133072What 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.