Page Mark, Lain Russell, Kemp Richard, Taylor Jane
School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Australia; Department of Forensic Medicine, New South Wales, Australia.
Department of Forensic Medicine, New South Wales, Australia.
Sci Justice. 2018 May;58(3):185-190. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.11.001. Epub 2017 Nov 7.
As part of a series of studies aimed at validating techniques in forensic odontology, this study aimed to validate the accuracy of ante-mortem (AM)/postmortem (PM) radiographic matching by dentists and forensic odontologists. This study used a web-based interface with 50 pairs of AM and PM radiographs from real casework, at varying degrees of difficulty. Participants were shown both radiographs as a pair and initially asked to decide if they represented the same individual using a yes/no binary choice forced-decision. Participants were asked to assess their level of confidence in their decision, and to make a conclusion using one of the ABFO (American Board of Forensic Odontology), INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organisation) and DVISys™ (DVI System International, Plass Data Software) identification scale degrees. The mean false-positive rate using the binary choice scale was 12%. Overall accuracy was 89% using this model, however, 13% of participants scored below 80%. Only 25% of participants accurately answered yes or no >90% of the time, with no individual making the correct yes/no decision for all 50 pairs of radiographs. Non-odontologists (lay participants) scored poorly, with a mean accuracy of only 60%. Use of the graded ABFO, DVISYS and INTERPOL scales resulted in general improvements in performance, with the false-positive and false-negative rates falling to approximately 2% overall. Inter-examiner agreement in assigning scale degrees was good (ICC=0.64), however there was little correlation between confidence and both accuracy or agreement among practitioners. These results suggest that use of a non-binary scale is supported over a match/non-match call as it reduces the frequency of false positives and negatives. The use of the terms "possible" and "insufficient information" in the same scale appears to create confusion, reducing inter-examiner agreement. The lack of agreement between higher-performing and lower-performing groups suggests that there is an inconsistency in the cognitive processes used to determine similarity between radiographs.
作为旨在验证法医牙科学技术的一系列研究的一部分，本研究旨在验证牙医和法医牙科学家进行生前（AM）/死后（PM）放射影像匹配的准确性。本研究使用了一个基于网络的界面，其中包含来自实际案件工作的50对AM和PM射线照片，难度各不相同。向参与者展示成对的两张射线照片，并首先要求他们通过是/否二元选择强制决策来判断它们是否代表同一个人。要求参与者评估他们对决策的信心水平，并使用美国法医牙科学委员会（ABFO）、国际刑警组织（INTERPOL）和DVISys™（国际DVI系统，Plass数据软件）识别量表等级之一得出结论。使用二元选择量表的平均假阳性率为12%。使用该模型的总体准确率为89%，然而，13%的参与者得分低于80%。只有25%的参与者在超过90%的时间里准确回答是或否，没有一个人对所有50对射线照片都做出正确的是/否决策。非牙科专业人员（外行人参与者）得分很低，平均准确率仅为60%。使用分级的ABFO、DVISYS和INTERPOL量表总体上提高了表现，假阳性和假阴性率总体降至约2%。检查者之间在分配量表等级方面的一致性良好（ICC = 0.64），然而，信心与从业者之间的准确性或一致性之间几乎没有相关性。这些结果表明，与匹配/不匹配判断相比，使用非二元量表更受支持，因为它减少了假阳性和假阴性的频率。在同一量表中使用“可能”和“信息不足”等术语似乎会造成混淆，降低检查者之间的一致性。表现较好和较差的组之间缺乏一致性表明，在确定射线照片之间的相似性时所使用的认知过程存在不一致。
