A proposal for cut marks classification using machine learning: Serrated vs. non-serrated, single vs. double-beveled knives

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Giada Sciâdi Steiger MSc, Matteo Borrini PhD
{"title":"A proposal for cut marks classification using machine learning: Serrated vs. non-serrated, single vs. double-beveled knives","authors":"Giada Sciâdi Steiger MSc,&nbsp;Matteo Borrini PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In tool mark identification, there is still a lack of characteristics and methodologies standardization used to analyze and describe sharp force trauma marks on skeletal remains. This study presents a classification method for cut marks on human bones, providing an applicable methodology for their examination and the relevant terminology for describing cases of sharp force trauma. A total of 350 cut marks were produced by stabbing pig ribs (<i>Sus scrofa</i>) with seven knives. The samples were analyzed under a stereomicroscope with a tangential light source. Through the analysis of cut marks, eleven traits were identified as significantly associated with the type of knife used. These traits included the general morphology of the kerf shape, the entrance and exit cross-profile shapes, the location of the rising on the entrance and exit cross-profile, the presence or absence of feathering, the presence or absence of shards and the location and the general morphology of the mounding. Binary logistic regression models were later trained and tested using nine out of the eleven traits. The first model categorized the cut mark as either produced by a serrated or non-serrated blade, while the second, as either produced by a single- or double-beveled blade. Classification scores of those models ranged between 63%–85% for the serration class and 63%–89% for the blade bevel class. This study proposes a new set of traits and the use of machine learning models to standardize and facilitate the analysis of stab wounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"69 6","pages":"1972-1984"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1556-4029.15588","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15588","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

In tool mark identification, there is still a lack of characteristics and methodologies standardization used to analyze and describe sharp force trauma marks on skeletal remains. This study presents a classification method for cut marks on human bones, providing an applicable methodology for their examination and the relevant terminology for describing cases of sharp force trauma. A total of 350 cut marks were produced by stabbing pig ribs (Sus scrofa) with seven knives. The samples were analyzed under a stereomicroscope with a tangential light source. Through the analysis of cut marks, eleven traits were identified as significantly associated with the type of knife used. These traits included the general morphology of the kerf shape, the entrance and exit cross-profile shapes, the location of the rising on the entrance and exit cross-profile, the presence or absence of feathering, the presence or absence of shards and the location and the general morphology of the mounding. Binary logistic regression models were later trained and tested using nine out of the eleven traits. The first model categorized the cut mark as either produced by a serrated or non-serrated blade, while the second, as either produced by a single- or double-beveled blade. Classification scores of those models ranged between 63%–85% for the serration class and 63%–89% for the blade bevel class. This study proposes a new set of traits and the use of machine learning models to standardize and facilitate the analysis of stab wounds.

Abstract Image

利用机器学习进行刀痕分类的建议:锯齿刀与无锯齿刀、单刃刀与双刃刀。
在工具痕迹鉴定方面,仍然缺乏用于分析和描述骸骨上锐器创伤痕迹的标准化特征和方法。本研究提出了人类骨骼上切割痕迹的分类方法,为其检查提供了适用的方法,并提供了描述锐器创伤案例的相关术语。研究人员用七把刀刺入猪(Sus scrofa)的肋骨,共产生了 350 个切割痕。样本在带有切向光源的体视显微镜下进行分析。通过对切痕的分析,确定了与所用刀具类型有显著关联的 11 个特征。这些特征包括切口形状的总体形态、入口和出口横截面形状、入口和出口横截面上隆起的位置、有无羽化、有无碎片以及堆积的位置和总体形态。随后使用 11 个特征中的 9 个对二元逻辑回归模型进行了训练和测试。第一个模型将切割痕迹分为锯齿状或无锯齿状,第二个模型将切割痕迹分为单刃或双刃。这些模型的锯齿分类得分率在 63%-85% 之间,刀刃斜面分类得分率在 63%-89% 之间。这项研究提出了一套新的特征,并使用机器学习模型来规范和促进对刺伤的分析。
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