Background Bite mark analysis has historically played a significant role in forensic odontology and has, on occasion, been employed as a method for the individual identification of criminal perpetrators. Advances in scientific knowledge, the emergence of critical studies challenging the validity and reliability of morphological comparison methods, and the retrospective review of numerous wrongful convictions later overturned through DNA testing have prompted a profound reassessment of this forensic discipline. This review critically examines the biological, methodological, and epistemological foundations of bite mark analysis, with particular attention to whether bite marks retain meaningful utility in reconstructing the circumstances and dynamics of an assault and can still provide reliable evidentiary value within judicial proceedings. Methods A structured critical review with a systematic search was conducted following the general principles of PRISMA 2020. MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Virtual Library, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 1997 to 12 September 2026, restricted to English-language publications. Title/abstract and full-text screening were performed independently and in duplicate by trained reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were synthesized qualitatively because of heterogeneity in study design, population, substrate, analytical method, and outcome definition, and study-level methodological quality was appraised narratively using a design-specific set of appraisal domains. Results The search retrieved 199 records (21 MEDLINE/PubMed, 29 Scopus, 20 Web of Science, 59 NCJRS Virtual Library, 70 Google Scholar). After removal of 28 duplicates, 171 records were screened by title/abstract; 85 were excluded, leaving 86 reports sought for retrieval. Three reports could not be retrieved; of the 83 reports assessed for eligibility, 36 were excluded after full-text evaluation and 47 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The included literature indicates that bite mark analysis may retain limited contextual and investigative value in selected circumstances, particularly for descriptive documentation and reconstruction of assault dynamics, but that current scientific knowledge does not support its use as a reliable method for individual identification. The review further provides an updated overview of bite mark classification, differentiation between human and animal bites, evidence collection and biological sampling protocols, comparative analytical approaches ranging from manual overlays to digital and three-dimensional techniques, the evolution of American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) scoring and reporting standards, and the influence of cognitive and contextual bias on examiner conclusions. Conclusions Collectively, these findings support a critical reassessment of the evidentiary role of bite mark analysis in contemporary forensic practice, favoring a descriptive and investigative function over individualization claims.
Postmortem tryptase thresholds are quoted in autopsy reports and in court as if they were a settled quantity derived from a common body of evidence. Because these thresholds reach practice through the review literature rather than through any single primary study, we examined that literature directly. We conducted a meta-research analysis of twelve reviews on the postmortem diagnosis of fatal anaphylaxis, identified by a structured search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Six reviews had an enumerable primary-study corpus and entered an overlap analysis based on the corrected covered area. For every numerical threshold we extracted its basis of derivation and the direction of the accompanying recommendation, and we recomputed the reported operating characteristics from each review's own tables.The six reviews declared 106 study inclusions, which resolved to 72 unique primary studies; 53 (73.6%) were cited by a single review. Overall overlap was moderate (corrected covered area 9.4%; 12.2% when reports from the same cohort were counted once), and the reviews applied eligibility criteria that excluded one another's evidence. Eight thresholds were reported, ranging from 30.4 to 74.2 μg/L, and the two reviews that endorse a numeric cut-off share only two of 27 primary studies. In one review, sensitivity and specificity were computed over study arms rather than decedents. In a second, an area under the curve and its confidence interval were later described as a sensitivity and a specificity, and have since been quoted in that form. In a third, antibody positivity was expressed over all included cases rather than over the cases tested. Four reviews made claims stronger than their appraised confidence, and three of them confined their main limitations to the full text.The thresholds in circulation are therefore not competing readings of shared evidence, and re-analysis cannot reconcile them. Postmortem tryptase should be reported as weighted evidence, together with its sampling context, the host and perimortem factors that affect it, the alternative diagnoses considered and the residual uncertainty, rather than as a test with a cut-off.
Forensic fingermark examiners show substantial inter-examiner variability, yet empirical evidence regarding the effects of structured consensus on examiner judgments remains limited. Three examiner groups (numerical experts, holistic experts, and novices) completed ten standardised Analysis-Comparison-Evaluation (ACE) exercises individually and under a Computer-Assisted Consensus Approach (CACA) that combined independent judgments, extended evaluative scales, computational evidential assessments, and structured deliberation within the Picture Annotation System (PiAnoS). Variability was compared across individual and consensus conditions. Pooling independent judgments as an intermediary between the individual and consensus conditions reduced variability relative to individual assessments, while structured consensus provided additional stabilisation beyond pooling. Consensus reduced variability across observational and evaluative judgments and improved alignment with ground truth among numerical experts. Non-directional inconclusive opinions decreased among expert groups, and where opinions became directional, the resulting opinions were concordant with ground truth. Novices showed reductions in observational variability but more limited changes in evaluative judgments, and the small novice sample warrants cautious interpretation. Overall, structured computer-assisted consensus reduced examiner variability and improved the consistency and evidential correspondence of examiner judgments, supporting the value of documented consensus procedures in forensic practice.
