ArticleScientific reports2026
A unified deep learning application framework for forensic shoeprint analysis under data-limited conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study presents a data-efficient framework for applying deep learning to forensic shoeprint matching under realistic casework constraints. In forensic practice, deployment is often limited by scarce labeled data, distributional differences between reference collections and casework evidence, and a lack of practical guidance on model selection, augmentation, and adaptation. Rather than proposing a new architecture, this study focuses on how existing deep learning components can be systematically adapted to improve reliability under such conditions. We examine three key aspects commonly encountered in practice: the selection of pretrained representations, the design of augmentation strategies, and adaptation to new domains using limited target-domain data. Experiments on two complementary shoeprint datasets demonstrate that generic pretrained models without adaptation exhibit unstable behavior, whereas domain-aligned backbones provide more consistent performance. In terms of data augmentation, standard geometric transformations can lead to non-monotonic and sometimes degraded performance, while morphology-preserving generative augmentation based on a convolutional autoencoder yielded more stable improvements. Under cross-domain dataset shift, few-shot fine-tuning with only 1-3% of labeled target-domain data recovers a substantial portion of the performance achieved with full-data training. In addition, combining generative and standard augmentation strategies produces competitive performance, suggesting that different augmentation mechanisms may introduce complementary variability, although systematic exploration of such combinations remains an open problem. Overall, this study provides practical, evidence-based guidance for applying deep learning in forensic shoeprint analysis under data-limited and domain-shifted conditions, with implications for other domains where similar constraints arise.
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.