Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40772272›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025

A likelihood ratio framework for inferring close kinship from dynamically selected SNPs.

Jianye Ge, Bruce Budowle, Michael Cariaso, Kristen Mittelman, David Mittelman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Jianye GeOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, United States.
Bruce BudowleOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, United States.
Michael CariasoOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, United States.
Kristen MittelmanOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, United States.
David MittelmanOthram Inc., The Woodlands, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) is a force-multiplier for human identification, leveraging dense single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data to infer relationships through identity by descent (IBD) segment analysis. Although powerful for investigative lead generation, broad adoption of SNP-based identification methods by the forensic community, especially medical examiners and crime laboratories, necessitates likelihood ratio (LR)-based relationship testing, to align with traditional kinship testing standards. To address this gap, a novel method was developed that incorporates LR calculations into FGG and SNP testing workflows. This approach is unique in that it dynamically selects unlinked, highly informative SNPs based on configurable thresholds for minor allele frequency (MAF) and minimum genetic distance for a robust and reliable analysis. Employing a curated panel of 222,366 SNPs from gnomAD v4 and data from the 1,000 genomes project, high accuracy in resolving relationships up to second-degree relatives can be achieved. For example, a subset of 126 SNPs (MAF > 0.4, minimum genetic distance of 30 cM) yielded 96.8% accuracy and a weighted F1 score of 0.975 across 2,244 tested pairs. This LR-based methodology enables forensic laboratories to select informative SNPs and integrate modern genomic data with existing accredited relationship testing frameworks, providing critical statistical support for close-relationship comparisons and enhances the rigor of FGG- and SNP-based human identification applications.

Indexed as

forensic genetic genealogyidentity by descentkinship analysislikelihood ratiorelationship testingsingle nucleotide polymorphismwhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID40772272
PMCPMC12325062

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.