ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
Artificial intelligence in forensic genetics: a multi-database bibliometric and science-mapping analysis (2003-2026).
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtificial intelligence, machine learning and computational prediction are entering forensic genetic workflows, from probabilistic DNA-profile interpretation to the prediction of externally visible characteristics, biogeographical ancestry and age. This study maps the structure of that literature and interprets it in terms of translational maturity, to support research prioritisation and validation agendas.
methodsTwo complementary retrieval arms were executed between 10 and 13 September 2026: a venue-anchored search of 80 forensic and genetics journals derived from the Scopus Source List, and a topic-only probe with no source restriction, both applied to Scopus and Web of Science. The probe was introduced to measure what a source-restricted strategy costs in recall, and was incorporated into the design once more than half of the additional records it returned proved eligible. All 728 unique records retrieved were screened for eligibility by two independent raters, with agreement computed on the independent codings (Cohen kappa 0.708 to 0.806). Analyses were computed on three corpora: performance indicators on all documents, conceptual structure on the records carrying index terms, and citation structure on Web of Science coverage.
resultsThe corpus comprises 520 documents from 108 sources and 1,908 authors, with 15.63% annual growth over complete years and 23.86 citations per document; four documents in five were published from 2017 onwards. The literature is organised around a single publishing nucleus accounting for 39.0% of documents and forming the entire first Bradford zone, alongside a dispersed tail of 100 sources that is more recent and substantially less cited; a quarter of the eligible literature lies outside the venue-anchored frame. Index-term co-occurrence analysis resolves into three thematic neighbourhoods spanning marker-based profiling and probabilistic interpretation, epigenetic age estimation, and sequencing with body-fluid identification. The number of clusters depends on the resolution parameter and on the composition of the corpus, and is reported with a formal stability analysis rather than as a finding. Contemporary neural paradigms are largely absent, and the two-arm design shows this absence to be a property of the field rather than of where it publishes.
conclusionArtificial intelligence has entered forensic genetics along distinct trajectories that differ in validation maturity, operational implementation and evidential admissibility. Validation conducted prospectively and across laboratories, uncertainty expressed in evidential terms, and reasoning that can be contested in court, rather than predictive performance alone, determine readiness for casework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42831976What 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.