ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2026
Forensic applications of the skin microbiome: a structured narrative review of donor association, contact inference, and crime-scene reconstruction.
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Skin-associated microbial communities are individualized, anatomically structured, temporally dynamic, and readily transferred to contacted surfaces. These properties have generated interest in the skin microbiome as complementary forensic evidence when conventional human DNA or fingerprint evidence is limited. Methods: We conducted a structured narrative review guided by the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA). PubMed/MEDLINE was searched from database inception through 2 August 2026, and reference lists of eligible studies and recent reviews were examined. Peer-reviewed studies were evaluated for relevance to skin microbial individuality, temporal stability, touch transfer, donor or source inference, postmortem interval estimation, analytical standardization, and legal or ethical interpretation. Evidence was synthesized according to study realism, analytical resolution, validation design, and proximity to forensic casework. Results: The biological basis for forensic use is supported by reproducible inter-individual and body-site variation, including persistent strain- and gene-level features. Controlled studies show that skin-associated communities can be recovered from touched objects and clothing and can support donor differentiation, particularly when targeted markers, microbial single-nucleotide polymorphisms, or metagenomic features are used. Nevertheless, performance estimates are strongly affected by cohort size, body site, substrate, time since deposition, environmental background, contamination, and machine-learning design. Evidence for body-site and biological-trace source inference is promising, whereas postmortem interval estimation, chronological contact reconstruction, and spatial trajectory inference remain exploratory. Conclusion: Skin microbiome profiling should currently be regarded as a source of investigative intelligence and potentially complementary evidence rather than a replacement for human DNA profiling. Translation into practice requires harmonized protocols, realistic multicenter validation, open and representative reference datasets, explicit error-rate reporting, likelihood-based interpretation, and proportionate ethical and legal safeguards.
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.