Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42236556›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2026

Artificial intelligence in forensic science: a systematic review. Part I: personal identification.

Valentina Bugelli, Francesco Calabrò, Laura Donato, Rossana Cecchi, Jessika Camatti, Marco Di Paolo, Lorenzo Franceschetti

Abstract readSystematic ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Valentina Bugelli *University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Francesco Calabrò *University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Laura DonatoUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Rossana CecchiUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Jessika CamattiUniversity of Parma, Parma, Italy. jessika.camatti@unipr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-8449-1803
Marco Di PaoloUniversity of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Lorenzo FranceschettiUniversity of Milano, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool in forensic sciences, offering new opportunities for personal identification through automated analysis of biological and imaging data. AI-based approaches have been increasingly applied to tasks such as sex estimation, human identification, ancestry estimation, and kinship analysis. This systematic review aims to synthesize the available evidence regarding the applications, methodological characteristics, and performance of AI models in forensic personal identification. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus following PRISMA guidelines. Studies investigating AI applications for forensic identification were included. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, dataset type, AI model architecture, forensic task, validation strategy, and reported performance metrics. A total of 89 studies published between 2012 and 2026 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies focused on sex estimation (63%), followed by human identification, ancestry estimation, multi-task prediction, and kinship verification. Most studies relied on imaging datasets, particularly computed tomography and radiographic images. Deep learning models represented the most frequently used analytical approaches. Reported accuracy values were generally high, with a median accuracy of 91.4% and an interquartile range of 88.9-95.0% in studies reporting single-value accuracy metrics. Deep learning approaches tended to achieve slightly higher performance than traditional machine learning models. AI shows considerable potential to support forensic personal identification, particularly in imaging-based applications. However, methodological heterogeneity, population-specific datasets, and limited external validation remain important challenges. Future research should prioritize standardized validation protocols, multi-population datasets, and transparent reporting to ensure the forensic applicability of AI-based identification systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceForensic SciencesDeep LearningForensic ImagingHumansSex Determination AnalysisArtificial intelligenceDeep learningForensic anthropologyForensic identificationMachine learningSex estimation

Identifiers

PMID42236556
PMCPMC13499856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.