SynthesisInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Artificial intelligence in forensic science: a systematic review. Part I: personal identification.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.