Forensic DNA Typing From Femurs and Bones of the Foot: A Study of 3 Cases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Evidence has been accumulating in the sense that femur may not always be the best option for DNA typing of skeletal remains. Recent studies have shown that bones of the hands and feet appear to be a superior source of preserved DNA. The current study reanalyzed DNA quantitation, degradation, and short tandem repeat typing in femurs, lateral cuneiforms, and distal foot phalanges. Data from 3 human identification cases involving corpses in an advanced decomposition state were collected. We found that in the studied cases, the femur provided equal or inferior results, recovering 84.9% of true alleles. Lateral cuneiforms (99.2%) and distal foot phalanges (96.8%) yielded higher percentages. In addition, more drop-ins and drop-outs were detected in femurs than cuneiforms and phalanges. This study adds to current findings that advocate for further investigation into bone selection for use in forensic practice. The impacts of our findings are limited by the small number of individuals studied and may not apply to old and degraded bones.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".