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 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.

Study on the performance of different craniofacial superimposition approaches (I).

As part of the scientific tasks coordinated throughout The 'New Methodologies and Protocols of Forensic Identification by Craniofacial Superimposition (MEPROCS)' project, the current study aims to analyse the performance of a diverse set of CFS methodologies and the corresponding technical approaches when dealing with a common dataset of real-world cases. Thus, a multiple-lab study on craniofacial superimposition has been carried out for the first time. In particular, 26 participants from 17 different institutions in 13 countries were asked to deal with 14 identification scenarios, some of them involving the comparison of multiple candidates and unknown skulls. In total, 60 craniofacial superimposition problems divided in two set of females and males. Each participant follow her/his own methodology and employed her/his particular technological means. For each single case they were asked to report the final identification decision (either positive or negative) along with the rationale supporting the decision and at least one image illustrating the overlay/superimposition outcome. This study is expected to provide important insights to better understand the most convenient characteristics of every method included in this study.

Ground truth data generation for skull-face overlay.

Objective and unbiased validation studies over a significant number of cases are required to get a more solid picture on craniofacial superimposition reliability. It will not be possible to compare the performance of existing and upcoming methods for craniofacial superimposition without a common forensic database available for the research community. Skull-face overlay is a key task within craniofacial superimposition that has a direct influence on the subsequent task devoted to evaluate the skull-face relationships. In this work, we present the procedure to create for the first time such a dataset. We have also created a database with 19 skull-face overlay cases for which we are trying to overcome legal issues that allow us to make it public. The quantitative analysis made in the segmentation and registration stages, together with the visual assessment of the 19 face-to-face overlays, allows us to conclude that the results can be considered as a gold standard. With such a ground truth dataset, a new horizon is opened for the development of new automatic methods whose performance could be now objectively measured and compared against previous and future proposals. Additionally, other uses are expected to be explored to better understand the visual evaluation process of craniofacial relationships in craniofacial identification. It could be very useful also as a starting point for further studies on the prediction of the resulting facial morphology after corrective or reconstructive interventionism in maxillofacial surgery.