ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2026
Assessing the accuracy of echocardiographic ventricular heart mass estimates: a comparison with autopsy heart weight.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeHeart weight is a key parameter for assessing cardiac pathology, typically determined postmortem during autopsies. In forensic practice, the evaluation of cardiological records is crucial, particularly in sudden cardiac death cases, to identify pre-existing cardiac pathology. The comparison of ante- and postmortem cardiac pathology is challenging given the differing conditions of cardiological and forensic examinations. This study aimed to evaluate whether the echocardiographically combined calculation of left ventricular mass (LVM) and right ventricular mass (RVM) can nearly approximate the ‘true’ (postmortem) heart weight.
methodsThe hearts of 60 deceased were weighed after dissection, removal of blood and blood clots, rinsing, and drying. Antemortem echocardiographic measurements of the same individuals were used to calculate RVM and LVM. The sum of LVM and RVM was compared with postmortem heart weight, whereby epicardial fat and atrial tissue were included in the postmortem heart weight.
resultsResults showed relevant differences between estimated ventricular heart mass and postmortem heart mass (198.0–248.7 grams), with a strong Pearson correlation and a poor intraclass coefficient. The postmortem interval showed no relevant influence on the differences.
conclusionPossible explanations for these differences include postmortem changes, geometric alterations due to cardiac disease, measurement inaccuracies, and the exclusion of atrial tissue and epicardial fat. In conclusion, echocardiography provides a useful antemortem approximation of ventricular heart mass with implications for both clinical and forensic practices, but the estimated ventricular heart mass should be interpreted with caution and should not be used as a substitute for the total heart weight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41968269What 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.