Study on the performance of different craniofacial superimposition approaches (II): Best practices proposal

Craniofacial superimposition, although existing for one century, is still a controversial technique within the scientific community. Objective and unbiased validation studies over a significant number of cases are required to establish a more solid picture on the reliability. However, there is lack of protocols and standards in the application of the technique leading to contradictory information concerning reliability. Instead of following a uniform methodology, every expert tends to apply his own approach to the problem, based on the available technology and deep knowledge on human craniofacial anatomy, soft tissues, and their relationships. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of different craniofacial superimposition methodologies and the corresponding technical approaches to this type of identification. With all the data generated, some of the most representative experts in craniofacial identification joined in a discussion intended to identify and agree on the most important issues that have to be considered to properly employ the craniofacial superimposition technique. As a consequence, the consortium has produced the current manuscript, which can be considered the first standard in the field; including good and bad practices, sources of error and uncertainties, technological requirements and desirable features, and finally a common scale for the craniofacial matching evaluation. Such a document is intended to be part of a more complete framework for craniofacial superimposition, to be developed during the FP7-founded project MEPROCS, which will favour and standardize its proper application

MEPROCS framework for Craniofacial Superimposition : Validation study

Craniofacial Superimposition (CFS) involves the process of overlaying a skull with a number of ante-mortem images of an individual and the analysis of their morphological correspondence. The lack of unified working protocols and the absence of commonly accepted standards, led to contradictory consensus regarding its reliability. One of the more important aims of 'New Methodologies and Protocols of Forensic Identification by Craniofacial Superimposition (MEPROCS)' project was to propose a common framework for CFS, what can be considered the first international standard in the field. The framework aimed to serve as a roadmap for avoiding particular assumptions that could bias the process. At the same time, it provides some empirical support to certain practices, technological means, and morphological criteria expected to facilitate the application of the CFS task and to improve its reliability. In order to confirm the utility and potential benefits of the framework use, there is a need to empirically evaluate it in CFS identification scenarios as close as possible to the reality. Thus, the purpose of this study is to validate the CFS framework developed. For that aim 12 participants were asked to report about a variable number of CFS following all the recommendations of the framework. The results are analysed and discussed according to the framework understanding and fulfilment, the participants' performance, and the correlation between expected decisions and those given by the participants. In view of the quantitative results and qualitative examination criteria we can conclude that those who follow the MEPROCS recommendations improve their performance

MEPROCS framework for Craniofacial Superimposition : Validation study

Craniofacial Superimposition (CFS) involves the process of overlaying a skull with a number of ante-mortem images of an individual and the analysis of their morphological correspondence. The lack of unified working protocols and the absence of commonly accepted standards, led to contradictory consensus regarding its reliability. One of the more important aims of 'New Methodologies and Protocols of Forensic Identification by Craniofacial Superimposition (MEPROCS)' project was to propose a common framework for CFS, what can be considered the first international standard in the field. The framework aimed to serve as a roadmap for avoiding particular assumptions that could bias the process. At the same time, it provides some empirical support to certain practices, technological means, and morphological criteria expected to facilitate the application of the CFS task and to improve its reliability. In order to confirm the utility and potential benefits of the framework use, there is a need to empirically evaluate it in CFS identification scenarios as close as possible to the reality. Thus, the purpose of this study is to validate the CFS framework developed. For that aim 12 participants were asked to report about a variable number of CFS following all the recommendations of the framework. The results are analysed and discussed according to the framework understanding and fulfilment, the participants' performance, and the correlation between expected decisions and those given by the participants. In view of the quantitative results and qualitative examination criteria we can conclude that those who follow the MEPROCS recommendations improve their performance

Study on the criteria for assessing skull-face correspondence in craniofacial superimposition

Craniofacial superimposition has the potential to be used as an identification method when other traditional biological techniques are not applicable due to insufficient quality or absence of ante-mortem and post-mortem data. Despite having been used in many countries as a method of inclusion and exclusion for over a century it lacks standards. Thus, the purpose of this research is to provide forensic practitioners with standard criteria for analysing skull-face relationships. Thirty-seven experts from 16 different institutions participated in this study, which consisted of evaluating 65 criteria for assessing skull-face anatomical consistency on a sample of 24 different skull-face superimpositions. An unbiased statistical analysis established the most objective and discriminative criteria. Results did not show strong associations, however, important insights to address lack of standards were provided. In addition, a novel methodology for understanding and standardizing identification methods based on the observation of morphological patterns has been proposed