Joseph W. Alsdurf MS, Eric F. Law PhD, Stephanie C. Luehr MS
{"title":"Performance evaluation of a Cadre Forensics TopMatch-GS 3D system for cartridge case comparisons","authors":"Joseph W. Alsdurf MS, Eric F. Law PhD, Stephanie C. Luehr MS","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Three-dimensional (3D) measurement systems for firearm forensics are becoming more prevalent in forensic laboratories, and these instruments are typically coupled with algorithms to assist firearm examiners with comparisons. Due to differences in firearm feature reproducibility on different types of ammunition, comparison algorithms need to be tested utilizing a variety of ammunition brands. For this study, 30 shots were fired, utilizing six common ammunition brands, from each of the 10 casework firearms for a total of 300 cartridge cases. All cartridge cases were scanned on a Cadre Forensics TopMatch-GS 3D desktop system and compared using Cadre's breech face and firing pin aperture shear algorithms for a total of 44,850 comparisons. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to quantify the performance of the algorithms when comparing within and between ammunition brands. Same ammunition brand comparisons (AUC = 0.964) performed statistically significantly better (<i>p</i> = 0.0075) than different ammunition brand comparisons (AUC = 0.944). Overall, the results generally indicated greater reproducibility of characteristics from a firearm when the ammunition in a comparison is the same, however, Cadre's algorithms demonstrated excellent overall discrimination between same and different-source comparisons regardless of ammunition brand (AUC = 0.946). Additionally, score thresholds were evaluated for easier interpretation of what algorithm results mean for practitioners, where 68.6% of same-source comparisons resulted in a similarity score greater than 0.5. These results should assist the field in moving toward the use of algorithms to assist examiners in casework comparisons.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"70 2","pages":"504-513"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","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/10.1111/1556-4029.15688","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
Three-dimensional (3D) measurement systems for firearm forensics are becoming more prevalent in forensic laboratories, and these instruments are typically coupled with algorithms to assist firearm examiners with comparisons. Due to differences in firearm feature reproducibility on different types of ammunition, comparison algorithms need to be tested utilizing a variety of ammunition brands. For this study, 30 shots were fired, utilizing six common ammunition brands, from each of the 10 casework firearms for a total of 300 cartridge cases. All cartridge cases were scanned on a Cadre Forensics TopMatch-GS 3D desktop system and compared using Cadre's breech face and firing pin aperture shear algorithms for a total of 44,850 comparisons. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to quantify the performance of the algorithms when comparing within and between ammunition brands. Same ammunition brand comparisons (AUC = 0.964) performed statistically significantly better (p = 0.0075) than different ammunition brand comparisons (AUC = 0.944). Overall, the results generally indicated greater reproducibility of characteristics from a firearm when the ammunition in a comparison is the same, however, Cadre's algorithms demonstrated excellent overall discrimination between same and different-source comparisons regardless of ammunition brand (AUC = 0.946). Additionally, score thresholds were evaluated for easier interpretation of what algorithm results mean for practitioners, where 68.6% of same-source comparisons resulted in a similarity score greater than 0.5. These results should assist the field in moving toward the use of algorithms to assist examiners in casework comparisons.
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.