% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Siahaan:893029,
      author       = {Siahaan, Tatjana and Reckert, Alexandra and Becker, Julia
                      and Eickhoff, Simon B. and Koop, Barbara and Gündüz, Tanju
                      and Böhme, Petra and Mayer, Felix and Küppers, Lisa and
                      Wagner, Wolfgang and Ritz-Timme, Stefanie},
      title        = {{M}olecular and morphological findings in a sample of oral
                      surgery patients: {W}hat can we learn for multivariate
                      concepts for age estimation?},
      journal      = {Journal of forensic sciences},
      volume       = {66},
      number       = {4},
      issn         = {1556-4029},
      address      = {Oxford [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2021-02509},
      pages        = {1524-1532},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {It has already been proposed that a combined use of
                      different molecular and morphological markers of aging in
                      multivariate models may result in a greater accuracy of age
                      estimation. However, such an approach can be complex and
                      expensive, and not every combination may be useful. The
                      significance and usefulness of combined analyses of
                      D-aspartic acid in dentine, pentosidine in dentine, DNA
                      methylation in buccal swabs at five genomic regions (PDE4C,
                      RPA2, ELOVL2, DDO, and EDARADD), and third molar
                      mineralization were tested by investigating a sample of 90
                      oral surgery patients. Machine learning models for age
                      estimation were trained and evaluated, and the contribution
                      of each parameter to multivariate models was tested by
                      assessment of the predictor importance. For models based on
                      D-aspartic acid, pentosidine, and the combination of both,
                      mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 2.93, 3.41, and 2.68 years
                      were calculated, respectively. The additional inclusion of
                      the five DNAm markers did not improve the results. The sole
                      DNAm-based model revealed a MAE of 4.14 years. In
                      individuals under 28 years of age, the combination of the
                      DNAm markers with the third molar mineralization stages
                      reduced the MAE from 3.85 to 2.81 years. Our findings
                      confirm that the combination of parameters in multivariate
                      models may be very useful for age estimation. However, the
                      inclusion of many parameters does not necessarily lead to
                      better results. It is a task for future research to identify
                      the best selection of parameters for the different
                      requirements in forensic practice.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {525 - Decoding Brain Organization and Dysfunction
                      (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-525},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {33942892},
      UT           = {WOS:000646609100001},
      doi          = {10.1111/1556-4029.14704},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/893029},
}