ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Area of origin analysis for expirated patterns using HemoVision.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) can be performed on various types of patterns, there is a lack of research looking into whether the area of origin (AO) can be determined for expirated patterns. Expirated patterns are formed when blood is pushed out of an opening in the body by the force of air, in some cases forming a pattern of radiating bloodstains which can be analyzed similarly to impact patterns. This research aims to compare the true versus observed AO of expirated patterns using a mechanical rig. In addition, a series of blind expirated patterns was created by human participants. The resultant patterns were analyzed in HemoVision to deduce the AO and determine what kinds of errors manifest. Using the rig, five expirated patterns were produced from 20 cm and 40 cm from a target, at 90° and 45° towards the wall (n = 20). The errors in each direction (X, Y, Z) were assessed. One-sample t-tests of the 3D coordinates found statistically significant differences between the sampled and hypothesized mean (μ = 0) at 90° and 20 cm (x = 11.89, p = 7.220E-04), 90° and 40 cm (x = 22.54, p = 5.764E-06), 45° and 20 cm (x = 13.41, p = 9.888E-04), and 45° and 40 cm (x = 28.16, p = 4.040E-05). This indicates that the AO may not be accurately calculated for expirated patterns, with the largest difference being the distance from the wall. This suggests a unique limitation compared to impact patterns, which tend to have the greatest errors in height. Blind tests were also analyzed to determine the quality of AO analysis using samples from human participants (n = 11).
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.