Personal identification using frontal sinus coding methods: The effect of mixed image modality comparisons

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Patricia R. Avent MS, Jessica L. Campbell PhD, D-ABFA, Heather M. Garvin PhD, D-ABFA, Lauren N. Butaric PhD
{"title":"Personal identification using frontal sinus coding methods: The effect of mixed image modality comparisons","authors":"Patricia R. Avent MS,&nbsp;Jessica L. Campbell PhD, D-ABFA,&nbsp;Heather M. Garvin PhD, D-ABFA,&nbsp;Lauren N. Butaric PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Several code-based methods have been created for comparing the frontal sinus in skeletal identification scenarios. However, little is known regarding matched-pair accuracy rates of these methods or how varying image modalities may affect these rates. The goals of this study were to validate the exclusion rates and to establish matched-pair accuracy rates of two well-cited coding methods, Cameriere et al. [23] and Tatlisumak et al. [24]. Additionally, individual variables were assessed for consistency in scoring between image modalities. Using a sample of U.S. African American, Native American, and European American females and males (<i>n</i> = 225), we examined individual variable scoring and string codes between two different image modalities (radiographs and CT-based 3D models). Arcades showed poor scoring consistency between modalities (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Although exclusion rates were similar to those reported in the original studies (93%–96%), matched-pair accuracy rates were low (13%–18%). None of the demographics (collection, sex, age, ancestry, and orientation) had an effect on the odds of a match. Interobserver and intraobserver analyses showed moderate to near-perfect agreement for all variables except supraorbital cells, which had minimal to no agreement. Currently, we do not recommend the application of these frontal sinus coding methods independent of other supporting identification methods given low variable consistency and accuracy rates. Visual identification should still be used to include or exclude an identification when using the frontal sinus.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"69 4","pages":"1155-1170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15533","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several code-based methods have been created for comparing the frontal sinus in skeletal identification scenarios. However, little is known regarding matched-pair accuracy rates of these methods or how varying image modalities may affect these rates. The goals of this study were to validate the exclusion rates and to establish matched-pair accuracy rates of two well-cited coding methods, Cameriere et al. [23] and Tatlisumak et al. [24]. Additionally, individual variables were assessed for consistency in scoring between image modalities. Using a sample of U.S. African American, Native American, and European American females and males (n = 225), we examined individual variable scoring and string codes between two different image modalities (radiographs and CT-based 3D models). Arcades showed poor scoring consistency between modalities (p < 0.001). Although exclusion rates were similar to those reported in the original studies (93%–96%), matched-pair accuracy rates were low (13%–18%). None of the demographics (collection, sex, age, ancestry, and orientation) had an effect on the odds of a match. Interobserver and intraobserver analyses showed moderate to near-perfect agreement for all variables except supraorbital cells, which had minimal to no agreement. Currently, we do not recommend the application of these frontal sinus coding methods independent of other supporting identification methods given low variable consistency and accuracy rates. Visual identification should still be used to include or exclude an identification when using the frontal sinus.

使用额窦编码方法进行个人识别:混合图像模式比较的影响
目前已有几种基于代码的方法用于在骨骼识别场景中比较额窦。然而,人们对这些方法的配对准确率或不同图像模式对这些准确率的影响知之甚少。本研究的目的是验证卡梅里埃等人[23]和塔特利苏马克等人[24]这两种广为引用的编码方法的排除率并确定配对准确率。此外,我们还评估了不同图像模式下单个变量评分的一致性。我们使用美国非洲裔美国人、美洲原住民和欧洲裔美国人的女性和男性样本(n = 225),检查了两种不同图像模式(射线照片和基于 CT 的三维模型)之间的单个变量评分和字符串代码。Arcades在不同模式之间的评分一致性较差(p < 0.001)。虽然排除率与原始研究报告的排除率相似(93%-96%),但配对准确率较低(13%-18%)。人口统计学特征(收集、性别、年龄、血统和取向)对配对几率均无影响。观察者之间和观察者内部的分析表明,除了眶上细胞的一致性极低甚至没有一致性外,其他所有变量的一致性都达到了中等或接近完美的程度。目前,鉴于变量一致性和准确率较低,我们不建议独立于其他辅助识别方法应用这些额窦编码方法。在使用额窦编码时,仍应使用目视识别来包含或排除识别结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of forensic sciences
Journal of forensic sciences 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信