Recovery of DNA from Shoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTShoes left at scenes of crime have historically been used as forensic links between suspect and scene, utilizing barefoot morphology. With the increased sensitivity of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis, the question arises as to whether DNA profiles linking suspects to shoes left at scenes could replace barefoot morphology, or be used as corroborative evidence. Two studies were run in order to ascertain if the wearer of the shoe could be determined consistently. Three areas of a shoe were swabbed: the heel, the lace/tongue, and the insole. Twenty-one shoes were analysed in Study 1 and forty-three shoes were analysed in Study 2. The results of these studies indicate that DNA can be profiled in some instances, but not from every shoe. Environmental factors and the wearer's ability to slough skin cells determined if DNA was found in the shoe or not. The lace/tongue region of the shoe provides more information concerning the wearer than the other areas swabbed. This may be due to the fact that the lace/tongue region of a shoe is the main area of contact with the wearer's hand and the shoe. It should also be noted that on many of the shoes where DNA was found, the resulting profile was of mixed origin or could be attributed to multiple persons. This suggests that besides the wearer's DNA being found on the shoe, other individuals are found as well. This could be explained by secondary transfers of sloughed cellular sources of DNA. If secondary transfers are prevalent, caution should be used if DNA analysis of shoes is the only means of linking suspects to scenes.RÉSUMÉUne chaussure retrouvée sur le lieu d'un crime peut servir à établir un lien entre le suspect et la scène du crime, par la comparaison morphologique de l'empreinte du pied. Cependant, étant donné la mise au point de l'analyse génétique comme outil medico-légal, il est à savoir si cette nouvelle méthode pourrait remplacer l'analyse morphologique, ou servir de preuve supplémentaire pour relier un suspect au lieu d'un crime. La présente étude a pour but de déterminer si une analyse génétique peut permettre d'identifier correctement l'individu à qui appartient un soulier. L'analyse d'échantillons prélevés du talon, des lacets/de la languette et de la semelle intérieure de deux séries de chaussures (au nombre de vingt et un et de quarante-trois respectivement) révèle qu'il est parfois, mais pas toujours possible d'obtenir un profil génétique à partir d'un soulier. Certains facteurs environnementaux, ainsi que la tendance d'un individu à muer ses cellules épithéliales, influencent la probabilité qu'un profil génétique soit détecté au niveau de la chaussure. La région des lacets/de la languette produit le plus souvent un profil génétique, possiblement en raison de sa manipulation plus fréquente par l'individu chaussant le soulier. De plus, l'information génétique tirée des chaussures est souvent d'origine mixte et peut correspondre aux profils de plusieurs individus: phénomène attribuable aux transferts secondaires de matériel cellulaire. Ainsi, il serait conseillé de ne pas se fier uniquement à l'analyse génétique de souliers pour établir un lien entre un suspect et le lieu d'un crime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".