Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40637644›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2025

Forensic skeletal and molecular anthropology face to face: Combining expertise for identification of human remains.

Elena Pilli, Andrea Palamenghi, Cristina Cattaneo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elena PilliIRIS, Dipartimento di Biologia, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Firenze, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3150-5082
Andrea PalamenghiLABANOF, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9292-6761
Cristina CattaneoLABANOF, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0086-029X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forensic anthropology (FA) has grown significantly as a well-established and independent discipline dedicated to the examination and identification of human remains in medicolegal and humanitarian contexts. When soft tissues are highly decomposed, skeletal analysis often provides more reliable data for reconstructing biological profiles and determining identity. The increasing number of unidentified decedents in both domestic and humanitarian scenarios highlights the need for forensic anthropologists. In this context, molecular anthropology (MA) could support FA by offering additional tools for forensic identification, although collaboration between these two fields remains uncommon. Drawing from the authors' experience, this review emphasizes the value of collaboration to enhance case resolution. This review shows that when FA encounters limitations, MA may provide critical insight to address unanswered questions. Although the full integration of FA and MA has yet to be realized, combining the strengths of both fields allows for the creation of more comprehensive biological profiles, thus significantly improving the chances of identifying unknown remains. This interdisciplinary approach broadens FA's scope and drives the development of innovative techniques and methodologies, advancing the pursuit of truth and justice.

Indexed as

Body RemainsBone and BonesForensic AnthropologyHumansbiological profileDNAforensic anthropologymolecular anthropologypersonal identificationskeleton

Identifiers

PMID40637644
PMCPMC12412729

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.