Making AI accessible for forensic DNA profile analysis
Abel Kyah Johannes Gerardus de WitiD, Claire D Wagenaar, Nathalie AC Janssen, Brechtje HoegeniD, Judith van de Wetering, Huub Hoofs, Simone Ariëns, Corina C.G. BenschopiD, Rolf J.F. Ypma
Abstract
Deep learning has the potential to be a powerful tool for automating allele calling in forensic DNA analysis. Studies to date have relied on bespoke model architecture and painstaking manual annotations to train models, which makes it challenging for other researchers to work with these techniques. In this study, we explore the possibility of training a wellperforming model using data gathered as part of casework, and employing a widely adopted architecture: the U-Net. In this approach, annotations are created from alleles called during casework. The model, dubbed DNANet, then classifies each scan point in the electropherogram (EPG) as part of an allele or non-allele, building on the task of segmentation in computer vision. We evaluate performance on unseen case data and on independent mixture research data, taking analyst annotations as ground-truth. We further compare DNANets performance with analyst performance on the research data, taking actual donor alleles as ground-truth. DNANet reached an F1 score of 0.971 on analyst annotated alleles on case data not seen during training, and 0.982 on the research data. On actual donor alleles, DNANet reached an F1 score of 0.962, equal to the F1 score computed from analyst annotations. Our results show that DNANets performance is comparable to human annotations following standard procedures. This illustrates the potential for obtaining good results with standard data and architecture. Future work may focus on what aspects of data, annotations or model architecture are key in shaping performance. We make our code, model weights and research data publicly available to aid the community. Lastly, we call for an effort to establish a standardized benchmark to aid in quantitative comparisons between allele calling systems.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 3
- FWCI
- 1.75
- Field percentile
- top 16%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Reducing Manual Labour in Forensic Microtrace Recognition with Deep Learning
Gerben Rijpkema, Dylan Kalisvaart, … Carlas Smith·Forensic Science InternationalPeer-reviewed·Dec 2, 2025
- Training Genotype Callers with Neural Networks
Remi Torracinta, Fabien Campagne·bioRxiv·Dec 30, 2016
- Human-Genetic Ancestry Inference and False Positives in Forensic Familial Searching
Alyssa Lyn Fortier, Jaehee Kim, Noah A. Rosenberg·G3 Genes Genomes GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 25, 2020
- Advancing Biogeographical Ancestry Predictions Through Machine Learning
Carola Sophia Heinzel, Lennart Purucker, … Peter Pfaffelhuber·Forensic Science International GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 13, 2025
- Evaluating reproducibility of AI algorithms in digital pathology with DAPPER
Andrea Bizzego, Nicole Bussola, … Cesare Furlanello·PLoS Computational BiologyPeer-reviewed·Mar 27, 2019
- A Transparent and Generalizable Deep Learning Framework for Genomic Ancestry Prediction
Camille Rochefort-Boulanger, Matthew Scicluna, … Julie Hussin·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2026