ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Combining with lab-on-chip technology and multi-organ fusion strategy to estimate post-mortem interval of rat.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in forensic science: a systematic review. Part II: long-range postmortem interval estimation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Amino acids and their metabolites as potential biochemical markers in postmortem vitreous humour.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The estimation of post-mortem interval (PMI) is one of the most important problems in forensic pathology all the time. Although many classical methods can be used to estimate time since death, accurate and rapid estimation of PMI is still a difficult task in forensic practice, so the estimation of PMI requires a faster, more accurate, and more convenient method. Materials and methods: In this study, an experimental method, lab-on-chip, is used to analyze the characterizations of polypeptide fragments of the lung, liver, kidney, and skeletal muscle of rats at defined time points after death (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, and 30 days). Then, machine learning algorithms (base model: LR, SVM, RF, GBDT, and MLPC; ensemble model: stacking, soft voting, and soft-weighted voting) are applied to predict PMI with single organ. Multi-organ fusion strategy is designed to predict PMI based on multiple organs. Then, the ensemble pruning algorithm determines the best combination of multi-organ. Results: The kidney is the best single organ for predicting the time of death, and its internal and external accuracy is 0.808 and 0.714, respectively. Multi-organ fusion strategy dramatically improves the performance of PMI estimation, and its internal and external accuracy is 0.962 and 0.893, respectively. Finally, the best organ combination determined by the ensemble pruning algorithm is all organs, such as lung, liver, kidney, and skeletal muscle. Conclusion: Lab-on-chip is feasible to detect polypeptide fragments and multi-organ fusion is more accurate than single organ for PMI estimation.
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.