Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42780444›Full record

ReviewForensic science international. Synergy2026

Current state: Assessing DNA results considering transfer.

Jarrah R Kennedy, Christophe Champod

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

2 authors.

Jarrah R KennedyTexas Forensic Science Commission, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
Christophe ChampodFaculty of Law, Criminal Justice and Public Administration, School of Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne, Batochime, CH-1015 Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents the current state of affairs regarding how DNA scientists consider the meaning of their results in light of questions about transfer and persistence-more formally termed evaluation of forensic observations given activity-level propositions. There are varying approaches both in the United States and abroad considering the assessment of DNA results in light of alleged activities. The authors distill the variability into: 1)

Indexed as

Activity level propositionsDNA-TPPRPrinciples of evidence interpretationQualitativeQuantitativeReportingTestimony

Identifiers

PMID42780444
PMCPMC13598168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.