Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42339394›Full record

ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2026

Move Fast and

Sarah P Chu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Forensic science international. Synergy, 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

1 author.

Sarah P ChuPerlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Cardozo Law, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forensic science is undergoing rapid technological expansion driven by advances in artificial intelligence, automation, and data-intensive investigative tools. While these innovations offer significant promise, their adoption has frequently outpaced the development of governance structures necessary to ensure scientific validity, procedural justice, and public trust-a pattern familiar in technology adoption within the criminal legal system. This paper applies the Gartner Hype Cycle as an analytic framework to examine the risks associated with implementing forensic science technologies before appropriate safeguards are in place. It argues that minimizing harm, promoting integrity, and sustaining public confidence require proactive adoption practices that integrate scientific rigor, justice-centered considerations, and mechanisms for institutional repair.

Indexed as

ImplementationIntegrityRepairTechnology

Identifiers

PMID42339394
PMCPMC13285353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.