Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39392823›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Environmental predictors impact microbial-based postmortem interval (PMI) estimation models within human decomposition soils.

Allison R Mason, Hayden S McKee-Zech, Dawnie W Steadman, Jennifer M DeBruyn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Development of Mathematical Models Using circRNA Combinations (International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Allison R MasonDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1339-1592
Hayden S McKee-ZechDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5477-8289
Dawnie W SteadmanDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, United States of America.
Jennifer M DeBruynDepartment of Microbiology, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2993-4144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial succession has been suggested to supplement established postmortem interval (PMI) estimation methods for human remains. Due to limitations of entomological and morphological PMI methods, microbes are an intriguing target for forensic applications as they are present at all stages of decomposition. Previous machine learning models from soil necrobiome data have produced PMI error rates from two and a half to six days; however, these models are built solely on amplicon sequencing of biomarkers (e.g., 16S, 18S rRNA genes) and do not consider environmental factors that influence the presence and abundance of microbial decomposers. This study builds upon current research by evaluating the inclusion of environmental data on microbial-based PMI estimates from decomposition soil samples. Random forest regression models were built to predict PMI using relative taxon abundances obtained from different biological markers (bacterial 16S, fungal ITS, 16S-ITS combined) and taxonomic levels (phylum, class, order, OTU), both with and without environmental predictors (ambient temperature, soil pH, soil conductivity, and enzyme activities) from 19 deceased human individuals that decomposed on the soil surface (Tennessee, USA). Model performance was evaluated by calculating the mean absolute error (MAE). MAE ranged from 804 to 997 accumulated degree hours (ADH) across all models. 16S models outperformed ITS models (p = 0.006), while combining 16S and ITS did not improve upon 16S models alone (p = 0.47). Inclusion of environmental data in PMI prediction models had varied effects on MAE depending on the biological marker and taxonomic level conserved. Specifically, inclusion of the measured environmental features reduced MAE for all ITS models, but improved 16S models at higher taxonomic levels (phylum and class). Overall, we demonstrated some level of predictability in soil microbial succession during human decomposition, however error rates were high when considering a moderate population of donors.

Indexed as

Postmortem ChangesSoil MicrobiologyBacteriaFemaleFungiHumansMachine LearningMaleMicrobiotaMiddle AgedRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoilRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil

Identifiers

PMID39392823
PMCPMC11469530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.