SynthesisForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025
Advances in postmortem interval estimation: A systematic review of machine learning and metabolomics across various tissue types.
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 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.
- Artificial intelligence in forensic science: a systematic review. Part II: long-range postmortem interval estimation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Pooled it
- From biochemical markers to machine learning: a review of postmortem interval estimation via vitreous humor analysis.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Effects of Tropical Laterite Soils on Larval Development and the Metabolome of the Forensically Important Blow FlyInsects · 2026Article
- Detecting and subtyping ketoacidosis from metabolomic patterns in forensic casework.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- UPLC/Q-TOF MS-based femoral muscle metabolomic analysis under high-temperature: a proof of concept for postmortem interval estimation.Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional postmortem interval (PMI) estimation methods rely on observable changes such as rigor mortis, livor mortis, and algor mortis but are often affected by environmental factors. Metabolomics, combined with techniques like nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and mass spectrometry, improves accuracy by identifying biochemical changes postmortem. Machine learning methods such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Partial Least Squares (PLS), and Support Vector Machines (SVMs), enhance PMI predictions by analyzing metabolite data. This review aims to summarize advances in using machine learning for PMI estimation and identify the optimal combination of tissue samples and algorithms for accurate predictions.
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, metabolic profiling technique, machine learning algorithms, potential PMI markers, and model performance.
resultsWe compared machine learning models for PMI estimation across various tissues. Zhang et al. (2022) had the best performance with a random forest (RF) model using cardiac blood, achieving a mean absolute error (MAE) of 1.067 h by selecting key metabolites. Wu et al. (2017) followed with an orthogonal signal-corrected PLS model (R
conclusionCardiac blood is best for short PMIs with random forest models, while skeletal muscle and stacking models excel for longer PMIs. Future studies should refine and validate these findings as well as extend the findings to human subjects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40702300What 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.