ETRForensic Risk Framework

Forensic science for femicide prevention

Documented trajectories of violence, structured through a transparent, weighted and auditable forensic classification framework.

The ETR — Escore Técnico de Risco — is a structured, literature-informed and lesion-centered forensic risk classification framework developed in Brazil to organize documented medicolegal and official evidence related to violence against women.

Published scientific framework · Retrospective evidence · Prospective validation in development

Scoring architecture

Applicable domain scores+Trajectory bonus=Final ETR score

An exploratory, retrospective classification—not a calibrated probability or predictive model.

  • Retrospective
  • Descriptive
  • Exploratory
FBSP 2026: presentation and materials (Portuguese)
Explore the frameworkRead the published evidence

01 / Scientific status

Evidence first. Claims kept within their limits.

The public language of the ETR is controlled by the published MPGO conceptual article and the article published OnlineFirst in Violence Against Women.

01Foundational concept

A prova técnica como elemento de antecipação institucional à violência de gênero

Teógenes Matias de Souza. Revista do Ministério Público do Estado de Goiás, no. 48 (2024), pp. 9–18; published online January 23, 2026.

View official publication
02Exploratory empirical study

A Forensic Risk Score for Femicide Prevention: Development and Exploratory Application in 103 Medicolegal Cases in Brazil

PUBLISHED ONLINEFIRST — VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. First published online: September 6, 2026. DOI: 10.1177/10778012261484124.

Read the published article

02 / Responsible interpretation

What the ETR is — and what it is not

What the ETR is

  • A structured forensic classification framework
  • Based on documented evidence
  • Weighted and traceable
  • Designed for forensic research, structured review and institutional communication

What the ETR is not

  • A validated individual prediction model
  • A probability calculator
  • A public self-assessment tool
  • An automated decision system
  • A replacement for victim-centered risk assessment
  • A substitute for professional, police, prosecutorial or judicial judgment
See the validation requirements

03 / The forensic gap

Relevant evidence can exist without becoming shared risk information.

Medicolegal and official records may contain detailed evidence about injuries and documented violence, yet relevant findings can remain dispersed across documents.

The ETR was developed to organize scoreable evidence into a traceable forensic classification while preserving the limits of the underlying documentation.

Conceptual foundation

The MPGO article proposed a broader institutional role for technical evidence: beyond retrospective proof, it may contribute to structured and auditable risk communication within coordinated protection workflows.

01Official records
02Documented findings
03Structured review
04Risk communication

04 / How it works

A transparent evidence path—not an automated decision.

Traceability is the functional core of the framework. Every contribution must remain connected to a documented source and to the version of the indicator used.

  1. 01

    Documented evidence

    Only findings supported by identified medicolegal and official source records enter the structured review.

  2. 02

    Structured indicators

    Documented findings are mapped to defined, version-controlled forensic indicators.

  3. 03

    Traceable classification

    Each contribution remains traceable to a source; categories are not calibrated probabilities.

  4. 04

    Responsible communication

    The result supports forensic communication and research, not automatic decisions.

Documentation quality sets the ceiling of interpretation. An absent indicator may be absent, undocumented or unscoreable.

05 / Retrospective evidence

A retrospective test of feasibility in confirmed cases.

The published study was retrospective, descriptive and exploratory. It examined whether the framework could be applied to anonymized medicolegal and official documentary data.

Case-selection flow

  1. 404violent deaths of women potentially classifiable as femicide screened
  2. 106preliminarily eligible cases
  3. 103confirmed femicide cases analyzed
58.3%High and Critical classifications in the retrospective sample
85.4%The three most frequent documented lethal-mechanism groups together in the retrospective sample
93.2%Principal lethal topography involving vital or multiple vital regions in the sample

These figures describe the published retrospective femicide sample. They are not estimates of predictive sensitivity, specificity or individual probability.

Read the retrospective study

06 / Validation

From retrospective feasibility to prospective evidence.

Validation is a scientific requirement, not a completed stage. Each phase must be independently evaluated before the ETR can be considered for operational decision-support use.

  1. Conceptual foundation

    Complete / Published

  2. Retrospective feasibility

    Complete / Published

  3. Inter-rater reliability

    Next

  4. Temporal validation

    Next

  5. Prospective silent validation

    Planned

  6. External multicenter validation

    Future

  7. Impact evaluation

    Future

The published study identifies the evidence still required before operational use as a decision-support tool.

  • 01Inter-rater reliability
  • 02Appropriate comparison groups
  • 03Alternative weighting strategies
  • 04Calibration and domain performance
  • 05External validation
  • 06Prospective application in non-fatal cases

07 / For Institutions

Turning documented forensic evidence into structured institutional knowledge.

Prosecution & Justice

Understanding documented trajectories, injury patterns and forensic indicators in structured case review.

Forensic Institutions

Standardizing documentation, indicator definitions, traceability and longitudinal interpretation.

Law Enforcement

Integrating forensic findings into multidisciplinary risk communication without replacing official risk protocols.

Legal Professionals

Supporting technically grounded interpretation of documented forensic findings while preserving evidentiary and scientific limits.

Researchers

Access to scientific rationale, operational definitions, methodology, validation roadmap and published evidence.

The ETR supports research, forensic communication and institutional learning. Operational decision-support use requires further validation and must preserve official risk protocols and professional judgment.

08 / Education

Teaching structured forensic reasoning before operational implementation.

Foundations

Forensic evidence and trajectories of violence.

Structured Review

Mapping documented findings into structured indicators.

Case Interpretation

Retrospective and simulated cases.

Responsible Use

Scientific uncertainty, limits and institutional communication.

Institutional Briefings

Scientific educational sessions for justice, forensic, academic and protection institutions.

Educational use does not constitute certification for predictive or operational application of the ETR.

09 / About

The ETR Research Program

Scientific origin

The ETR grew from forensic research in Brazil into a structured framework for interpreting documented evidence of violence against women. Its conceptual foundation addresses the role of official forensic evidence in institutional risk communication.

Research context

The retrospective study examined anonymized medicolegal and official documentary records from 103 confirmed femicide cases in Brazil. This research context supports the study of documented trajectories and forensic indicators.

Published evidence

The scientific trajectory comprises a conceptual article in the journal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Goiás and an exploratory empirical study published OnlineFirst in Violence Against Women on September 6, 2026.

Current validation program

The validation roadmap moves from published retrospective feasibility toward inter-rater reliability, temporal validation and prospective silent validation. External multicenter validation and impact evaluation remain future stages.

Explore the published evidenceView the validation roadmap
Research team
  • Teógenes Matias de Souza
  • André Vilela Komatsu
  • Kathleen Liedtke Kolb
  • Luís Gustavo Toledo Zulai

Teógenes Matias de Souza

Corresponding author
Scientific Police of Paraná, Brazil

Violence Against Women · DOI 10.1177/10778012261484124

Scientific transparency and governance

01

Privacy

Individual-level case data are not publicly available. Public materials use de-identified aggregate information.

02

Institutional boundary

Institutional research support does not imply governmental adoption or endorsement. Interpretations remain the responsibility of the authors.

03

Version control

Website content v1.3 · scientific wording controlled by the MPGO publication and the published Violence Against Women article.

10 / Scientific & institutional briefings

Request a Scientific Briefing

Scientific and institutional briefings may be requested by prosecution services, courts, forensic institutions, law-enforcement agencies, universities, research centers and professional associations.

Request a briefingView corresponding author ORCID

Do not send case narratives, personal identifiers, medical or forensic records, emergency requests or score submissions.