Decoding The Twin Code: Exploring Multimodal Biometrics in Identical Twin Differentiation- A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Identical (monozygotic) twins originate from a single fertilized egg that splits early in development, resulting in two individuals with identical DNA. Although they share nearly identical facial features and anatomy, subtle differences can develop over time due to epigenetic and behavioral influences. With the rise in twin births, there is a growing need for biometric systems capable of accurately distinguishing them.Traits such as fingerprints, irises, and palm prints, remain unique due to random developmental factors during gestation. This systematic review examines existing biometric methods and explores the most effective multimodal approaches to enhance accuracy in identifying genetically similar individuals. systematic review is on exploring multimodal biometrics in identical monozygotic twins. differentiation. research question: To identify the most promising multimodal biometric combinations. research question: To analyse advancements in biometric technology that may improve identification reliability in genetically similar individuals.

Methodology: Criteria: Studies that used cross-sectional or survey-based methods were included, while inaccessible reviews and case reports were left out. Strategy: Research was gathered from IEEE Xplore, Embase, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Google Scholar (2000–2024) using keywords like "Biometrics," "Identical Twins," and "Identification." PRISMA guidelines were followed, and reference lists were checked for additional sources. Data Collection: Key details such as study design, participant count, and main findings were recorded. In total, 16 studies involving 1,387 twin pairs were analysed.

Conclusion: Media Reports On Identical Twin Trials Often Highlight The Difficulty Of Identifying The Perpetrator Due To identical DNA. However, biometrics like fingerprints, iris patterns, ear shape, and facial features provide alternative methods (IPRS, 2013). A literature review found fingerprints to be the most reliable, with ear and lip prints showing potential but limited by scarce data.