Technical note: Proposed method to objectively evaluate gunshot residue comparisons does not generalize to different-location settings

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL

Forensic science international Pub Date : 2025-02-21 DOI:10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112414

K. de Bie , M. Vinkenoog , S. Ariëns , T.L. Dirkse , C. Kukurin , C.J.M. van der Ham , W. Bosma , R.J.F. Ypma

{"title":"Technical note: Proposed method to objectively evaluate gunshot residue comparisons does not generalize to different-location settings","authors":"K. de Bie , M. Vinkenoog , S. Ariëns , T.L. Dirkse , C. Kukurin , C.J.M. van der Ham , W. Bosma , R.J.F. Ypma","doi":"10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Previously, we proposed a likelihood ratio system for pairwise source comparison of gunshot residue (GSR) samples based on elemental composition. Only pairs of GSR samples from the same location type (e.g., hand-hand) were considered, as the data originates from casework and ground truth is not available for samples from different location types (e.g., hand-cartridge case). This lack of sample pairs taken from different locations is a limitation, as casework will usually require such sample pairs to be evaluated. In this study, we test the impact of this sampling location limitation by evaluating the model with an experimental dataset for which ground truth was available for same-location as well as different-location pairs. We find a sharp decline in the performance of the model, with C<sub>llr</sub> deteriorating from 0.35 to 0.98. Additional exploration of various system extensions does not lead to significant improvements. We discuss the potential causes for this decline and conclude the system is not currently ready for application in forensic casework.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12341,"journal":{"name":"Forensic science international","volume":"369 ","pages":"Article 112414"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic science international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073825000520","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previously, we proposed a likelihood ratio system for pairwise source comparison of gunshot residue (GSR) samples based on elemental composition. Only pairs of GSR samples from the same location type (e.g., hand-hand) were considered, as the data originates from casework and ground truth is not available for samples from different location types (e.g., hand-cartridge case). This lack of sample pairs taken from different locations is a limitation, as casework will usually require such sample pairs to be evaluated. In this study, we test the impact of this sampling location limitation by evaluating the model with an experimental dataset for which ground truth was available for same-location as well as different-location pairs. We find a sharp decline in the performance of the model, with C_llr deteriorating from 0.35 to 0.98. Additional exploration of various system extensions does not lead to significant improvements. We discuss the potential causes for this decline and conclude the system is not currently ready for application in forensic casework.

查看原文本刊更多论文

技术说明：提出的方法是客观地评价枪弹残留比较，但不能推广到不同的位置设置

在此之前，我们提出了一种基于元素组成的似然比系统，用于枪弹残留物（GSR）样本的两两源比较。仅考虑来自相同位置类型（例如，手持式）的成对GSR样本，因为数据来自案例工作，而来自不同位置类型（例如，手持式）的样本无法获得地面真相。缺乏从不同地点采集的样本对是一个限制，因为个案工作通常需要对这些样本对进行评估。在本研究中，我们通过使用实验数据集评估模型来测试这种采样位置限制的影响，该数据集可用于同一位置和不同位置对的地面真实值。我们发现模型的性能急剧下降，Cllr从0.35下降到0.98。对各种系统扩展的额外探索不会带来显著的改进。我们讨论了这种下降的潜在原因，并得出结论，该系统目前还没有准备好应用于法医案件工作。

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

Forensic science international 医学-医学：法

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

9.10%

发文量

285

审稿时长

49 days

期刊介绍： Forensic Science International is the flagship journal in the prestigious Forensic Science International family, publishing the most innovative, cutting-edge, and influential contributions across the forensic sciences. Fields include: forensic pathology and histochemistry, chemistry, biochemistry and toxicology, biology, serology, odontology, psychiatry, anthropology, digital forensics, the physical sciences, firearms, and document examination, as well as investigations of value to public health in its broadest sense, and the important marginal area where science and medicine interact with the law. The journal publishes: Case Reports Commentaries Letters to the Editor Original Research Papers (Regular Papers) Rapid Communications Review Articles Technical Notes.