| Title |
Validation and evaluation of measuring methods for the 3D documentation of external injuries in the field of forensic medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Legal Medicine, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00414-017-1756-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ursula Buck, Kirsten Buße, Lorenzo Campana, Christian Schyma |
| Abstract |
Three-dimensional (3D) measurement techniques are gaining importance in many areas. The latest developments brought more cost-effective, user-friendly, and faster technologies onto the market. Which 3D techniques are suitable in the field of forensic medicine and what are their advantages and disadvantages? This wide-ranging study evaluated and validated various 3D measurement techniques for the forensic requirements. High-tech methods as well as low-budget systems have been tested and compared in terms of accuracy, ease of use, expenditure of time, mobility, cost, necessary knowhow, and their limitations. Within this study, various commercial measuring systems of the different techniques were tested. Based on the first results, one measuring system was selected for each technique, which appeared to be the most suitable for the forensic application or is already established in forensic medicine. A body of a deceased, a face and an injury of a living person, and a shoe sole were recorded by 11 people with different professions and previous knowledge using the selected systems. The results were assessed and the personal experiences were evaluated using a questionnaire. In addition, precision investigations were carried out using test objects. The study shows that the hand-held scanner and photogrammetry are very suitable for the 3D documentation of forensic medical findings. Their moderate acquisition costs and easy operation could lead to more frequent application in forensic medicine in the future. For special applications, the stripe-light scanner still has its justification due to its high precision, the flexible application area, and the high reliability. The results show that, thanks to the technological advances, the 3D measurement technology will have more and more impact on the routine of the forensic medical examination. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 31% |
| Engineering | 4 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,486,175
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#973
of 2,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,102
of 440,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#28
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,084 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.