Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42443313›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

AI-based organ weight estimation from postmortem computed tomography.

Marc Windgassen, Andreas Heinrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Marc WindgassenInstitute of Forensic Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Andreas HeinrichDepartment of Radiology, Jena University Hospital, Friedrich Schiller University, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. andreas.heinrich@med.uni-jena.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3862-4543

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate organ weight determination is essential in forensic autopsy. Postmortem computed tomography (CT) combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based segmentation allows automated, non-invasive organ delineation. This study evaluated the accuracy of CT-derived organ weights against conventional autopsy measurements. A total of 100 postmortem CT examinations (mean age 54 ± 21 years; 35 females, 65 males) were analyzed. Brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and spleen were segmented automatically in two model resolutions, and organ weights were derived from voxel volumes and Hounsfield unit-based tissue densities. Across all organs, mean differences between CT- and autopsy-derived organ weights were - 12.69 ± 107.96 g (median - 2.95 g) for the 1.5 mm model and - 18.42 ± 116.67 g (median - 1.95 g) for the 3 mm model. Mean absolute differences were 70.76 ± 83.07 g (median 29.05 g) and 77.43 ± 90.60 g (median 30.50 g), respectively. Agreement was highest for the brain and liver, followed by the kidneys and spleen, whereas the heart showed the largest deviations. Segmentation failures were uncommon and were mainly associated with decomposition, trauma, or incomplete organ coverage. These findings indicate that AI-based segmentation enables reliable, largely non-invasive organ weight estimation in postmortem CT and may support forensic investigations and personal identification workflows based on antemortem imaging.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAutopsyBrainFemaleForensic ImagingHumansKidneyLiverMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizePostmortem ImagingArtificial intelligenceBody compositionBody weights and measuresComputer-assisted image processingForensic medicineMeSHX-ray computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID42443313
PMCPMC13365199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.