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

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
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":"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","authors":"K. de Bie ,&nbsp;M. Vinkenoog ,&nbsp;S. Ariëns ,&nbsp;T.L. Dirkse ,&nbsp;C. Kukurin ,&nbsp;C.J.M. van der Ham ,&nbsp;W. Bosma ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Technical note: Proposed method to objectively evaluate gunshot residue comparisons does not generalize to different-location settings\",\"authors\":\"K. de Bie ,&nbsp;M. Vinkenoog ,&nbsp;S. Ariëns ,&nbsp;T.L. Dirkse ,&nbsp;C. Kukurin ,&nbsp;C.J.M. van der Ham ,&nbsp;W. Bosma ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

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。
Technical note: Proposed method to objectively evaluate gunshot residue comparisons does not generalize to different-location settings
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 Cllr 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic science international
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.
×
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