Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40259168›Full record

SynthesisForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025

From microbial data to forensic insights: systematic review of machine learning models for PMI estimation.

Abdulkreem Abdullah Al-Juhani, Arwa Mohammad Gaber, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Saleh Showail, Amjad Aoussi Aseeri

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Abdulkreem Abdullah Al-JuhaniDepartment of Surgery, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Asurgeon1@outlook.com.
Arwa Mohammad GaberCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Rodan Mahmoud DesokyCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz A BinshalhoubForensic Medicine Consultant, Forensic Medicine Services Administration, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed Jamaan AlzahraniMedical Intern, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Mofareh Shubban AlraythiFaculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Saleh ShowailForensic Medicine Consultant, Forensic Medicine Services Administration, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Amjad Aoussi AseeriForensic Medical Services, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningMicrobiotaPostmortem ChangesHumansAIBoilingColdMachine learningMicrobiomePMIPMSIPost-mortem intervalSubmersion

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.