ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2022
How does mass loss compare with total body score when assessing decomposition of human and pig cadavers?
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of estimating postmortem interval using the relationship between total body score and accumulated degree-days: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Bridging the gap between decomposition theory and forensic research on postmortem interval.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Review
- A synthesis of carcass decomposition studies conducted at a tropical (Aw) taphonomy facility: 2013-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Providing accurate and reliable measures of decomposition is paramount for forensic research where decomposition progress is used to estimate time of death. Mass loss is routinely used as a direct measure of biomass decomposition in ecological studies, yet few studies have analysed mass loss in a forensic context on human cadavers to determine its usefulness for modelling the decomposition process. Mass loss was examined in decomposing human and pig cadavers, and compared with other common decomposition metrics, such as total body score (TBS). One summer and one winter field decomposition experiment was conducted using human and pig cadavers, as pigs are often used as proxies for human cadavers in forensic research. The two measures of decomposition revealed two contrasting patterns of decomposition on pigs and humans, particularly in winter where TBS stabilised at similar values, but mass loss differed greatly. Mass loss was found to be faster in pigs than humans during early decomposition. Pigs lost 75% of their mass in winter, while humans lost less than 50%; however, in summer, both lost around 80% of their mass. TBS displayed similar patterns in both experiments, with TBS increasing more rapidly in pigs compared with humans but both eventually reaching similar TBS values in late decomposition. Measuring mass loss can provide additional information about decomposition progress that is missed if using TBS only. Key differences in decomposition progress between cadaver types were also observed, suggesting caution when extrapolating data from pigs to humans for forensic research and decomposition modelling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.