ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2023
A model of evaluative opinion to encourage greater transparency and justification of interpretation in postmortem forensic toxicology.
Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Kratom-Associated Pulmonary Toxicity: A Systematic Review of Case Reports and Forensic Series with a Proposed Clinical Phenotype Classification.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2026Pooled it
- Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Anomaly detection as a tool for identifying cases of interest in postmortem toxicology.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Transparent reporting in forensic Science: Exploring its meaning and challenges.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Review
- Difficulties associated with the interpretation of postmortem toxicology.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past decades, the calls to improve the robustness of interpretation in forensic science have increased in magnitude. Forensic toxicology has seen limited progress in this regard. In this work, we propose a transparent interpretive pathway for use in postmortem forensic toxicology cases. This process allows the selection of the interpretive methodology based on the amount of previous information that is available for the drug(s) in question. One approach is an assessment of various pharmacological and circumstantial considerations resulting in a toxicological significance score (TSS), which is particularly useful in situations where limited information about a drug is available. When there is a robust amount of case data available, then a probabilistic approach, through the evaluation of likelihood ratios by the forensic toxicologist and of prior probabilities by the fact finder, is utilized. This methodology provides a transparent means of making an interpretive decision on the role of a drug in the cause of death. This will allow the field of forensic toxicology to take a step forward in using best practice in evaluative reporting, a tool already used by many other forensic science disciplines.
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.