Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40702300›Full record

SynthesisForensic science, medicine, and pathology2025

Advances in postmortem interval estimation: A systematic review of machine learning and metabolomics across various tissue types.

Abdulkreem Abdullah AlJuhani, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Farouq Faisal Alzahrani

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Abdulkreem Abdullah AlJuhaniDepartment of Surgery King, Abdulaziz University Hospital, Riyadh, SA, Saudi Arabia. Kroomx@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4738-218X
Rodan Mahmoud DesokyCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz A BinshalhoubForensic Medicine Services Administration, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed Jamaan AlzahraniFaculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mofareh Shubban AlraythiFaculty of Medicine, Jazan University Saudi Arabia, Jizan, Saudi Arabia.
Farouq Faisal AlzahraniNayef College for National Security, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningMetabolomicsPostmortem ChangesAlgorithmsBiomarkersHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisMuscle, SkeletalMyocardiumPrincipal Component AnalysisSupport Vector MachineBiomarkersAIBloodEyeMachine learningMetabolomicsMusclePericardial fluidPMIPostmortem interval

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.