SynthesisForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025
From microbial data to forensic insights: systematic review of machine learning models for PMI estimation.
Synthesis in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forensic Microbiomics and Trace Microbial Evidence: Molecular Innovations for Linking Suspects, Objects, and Environments.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Cardiac blood phenethylamine as a potential biomarker for post-mortem interval in forensic autopsy cases.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Estimating the Post-Mortem Interval Under Extreme Heat Environments: A Climate-Adaptive Case Series Based on Artificial Intelligence-Supported Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Microbial succession and machine learning for postmortem interval estimation in bromadiolone-poisoned cadavers.AMB Express · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstimating post-mortem interval (PMI) is crucial for forensic timelines, yet traditional methods are prone to errors from witness testimony and biological markers sensitive to environmental factors. New molecular and microbial techniques, such as DNA degradation patterns and bacterial community analysis, have shown promise by improving PMI estimation accuracy and reliability over traditional methods. Machine learning further enhances PMI estimation by leveraging complex microbial data. This review addresses the gap by systematically analyzing how microbiome-based PMI predictions compare across organs, environments, and machine learning techniques.
methodsWe retrieved relevant articles up to September 2024 from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted from eligible studies by two independent reviewers. This included the number and species of subjects, tissue sample used, PMI range in the study, machine learning algorithms, and model performance.
resultsWe gathered 1252 records from five databases after excluding 750 duplicates. After screening titles and abstracts, 43 records were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 28 included articles. Our ranking of machine learning models for PMI estimation identified the top five based on error metrics and explained variance. Wang (2024) achieved a mean absolute error (MAE) of 6.93 h with a random forests (RF) model. Liu (2020) followed with an MAE of 14.483 h using a neural network. Cui (2022) used soil samples for PMI predictions up to 36 days, reaching an MAE of 1.27 days. Yang (2023) employed an RF model using soil samples, achieving an MAE of 1.567 days in summer and an MAE of 2.001 days in winter. Belk (2018) an RF model on spring soil samples with 16S rRNA data, attaining an MAE of 48 accumulated day degrees (ADD) (~ 3-5 days) across a PMI range of 142 days.
conclusionMachine learning models, particularly RF, have demonstrated effectiveness in PMI estimation when combined with 16S rRNA and soil samples. However, improving model performance requires standardized parameters and validation across diverse forensic environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40259168What 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.