↓ Skip to main content

Use of prior odds for missing persons identifications

Overview of attention for article published in Investigative Genetics, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of prior odds for missing persons identifications
Published in
Investigative Genetics, June 2011
DOI 10.1186/2041-2223-2-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce Budowle, Jianye Ge, Ranajit Chakraborty, Harrell Gill-King

Abstract

Identification of missing persons from mass disasters is based on evaluation of a number of variables and observations regarding the combination of features derived from these variables. DNA typing now is playing a more prominent role in the identification of human remains, and particularly so for highly decomposed and fragmented remains. The strength of genetic associations, by either direct or kinship analyses, is often quantified by calculating a likelihood ratio. The likelihood ratio can be multiplied by prior odds based on nongenetic evidence to calculate the posterior odds, that is, by applying Bayes' Theorem, to arrive at a probability of identity. For the identification of human remains, the path creating the set and intersection of variables that contribute to the prior odds needs to be appreciated and well defined. Other than considering the total number of missing persons, the forensic DNA community has been silent on specifying the elements of prior odds computations. The variables include the number of missing individuals, eyewitness accounts, anthropological features, demographics and other identifying characteristics. The assumptions, supporting data and reasoning that are used to establish a prior probability that will be combined with the genetic data need to be considered and justified. Otherwise, data may be unintentionally or intentionally manipulated to achieve a probability of identity that cannot be supported and can thus misrepresent the uncertainty with associations. The forensic DNA community needs to develop guidelines for objectively computing prior odds.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Other 5 12%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 July 2019.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Genetics
#66
of 94 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,953
of 127,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Genetics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 94 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 127,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.