| Title |
A novel method for pair-matching using three-dimensional digital models of bone: mesh-to-mesh value comparison
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Legal Medicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00414-016-1334-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mara A. Karell, Helen K. Langstaff, Demetrios J. Halazonetis, Caterina Minghetti, Mélanie Frelat, Elena F. Kranioti |
| Abstract |
The commingling of human remains often hinders forensic/physical anthropologists during the identification process, as there are limited methods to accurately sort these remains. This study investigates a new method for pair-matching, a common individualization technique, which uses digital three-dimensional models of bone: mesh-to-mesh value comparison (MVC). The MVC method digitally compares the entire three-dimensional geometry of two bones at once to produce a single value to indicate their similarity. Two different versions of this method, one manual and the other automated, were created and then tested for how well they accurately pair-matched humeri. Each version was assessed using sensitivity and specificity. The manual mesh-to-mesh value comparison method was 100 % sensitive and 100 % specific. The automated mesh-to-mesh value comparison method was 95 % sensitive and 60 % specific. Our results indicate that the mesh-to-mesh value comparison method overall is a powerful new tool for accurately pair-matching commingled skeletal elements, although the automated version still needs improvement. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 24% |
| Arts and Humanities | 9 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
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 21 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,315,221
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#1,558
of 2,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,437
of 300,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#26
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,070 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 300,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.