Abdulkreem Abdullah Al-Juhani, Arwa Mohammad Gaber, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Saleh Showail, Amjad Aoussi Aseeri
{"title":"从微生物数据到法医洞察:PMI估计机器学习模型的系统回顾。","authors":"Abdulkreem Abdullah Al-Juhani, Arwa Mohammad Gaber, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Saleh Showail, Amjad Aoussi Aseeri","doi":"10.1007/s12024-025-01002-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Estimating 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Machine 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12449,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From microbial data to forensic insights: systematic review of machine learning models for PMI estimation.\",\"authors\":\"Abdulkreem Abdullah Al-Juhani, Arwa Mohammad Gaber, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Saleh Showail, Amjad Aoussi Aseeri\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12024-025-01002-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Estimating 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Machine 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-025-01002-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-025-01002-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:估计死后时间间隔(PMI)对法医时间线至关重要,但传统方法容易因证人证词和对环境因素敏感的生物标记而出错。新的分子和微生物技术,如DNA降解模式和细菌群落分析,通过提高PMI估计的准确性和可靠性比传统方法显示出希望。机器学习通过利用复杂的微生物数据进一步增强PMI估计。本综述通过系统分析基于微生物组的PMI预测如何在器官、环境和机器学习技术之间进行比较来解决这一差距。方法:检索PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、IEEE、Cochrane图书馆截止2024年9月的相关文章。数据由两名独立审稿人从符合条件的研究中提取。这包括受试者的数量和种类、使用的组织样本、研究中的PMI范围、机器学习算法和模型性能。结果:我们从5个数据库中收集了1252条记录,排除了750条重复记录。在筛选标题和摘要后,对43篇记录进行了合格性评估,产生28篇纳入文章。我们对PMI估计的机器学习模型进行了排名,根据误差指标确定了前五名,并解释了方差。Wang(2024)使用随机森林(RF)模型实现了6.93 h的平均绝对误差(MAE)。Liu(2020)使用神经网络的MAE为14.483 h。Cui(2022)使用土壤样本进行长达36天的PMI预测,MAE达到1.27天。Yang(2023)采用土壤样品的RF模型,夏季MAE为1.567天,冬季MAE为2.001天。Belk(2018)使用16S rRNA数据对春季土壤样品进行了RF模型,在142天的PMI范围内获得了48累积日度(ADD)(~ 3-5天)的MAE。结论:机器学习模型,特别是RF,在与16S rRNA和土壤样品结合使用时,已经证明了PMI估计的有效性。然而,提高模型性能需要标准化的参数和跨各种取证环境的验证。
From microbial data to forensic insights: systematic review of machine learning models for PMI estimation.
Background: Estimating 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.
Methods: We 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.
Results: We 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.
Conclusion: Machine 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.
期刊介绍:
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology encompasses all aspects of modern day forensics, equally applying to children or adults, either living or the deceased. This includes forensic science, medicine, nursing, and pathology, as well as toxicology, human identification, mass disasters/mass war graves, profiling, imaging, policing, wound assessment, sexual assault, anthropology, archeology, forensic search, entomology, botany, biology, veterinary pathology, and DNA. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology presents a balance of forensic research and reviews from around the world to reflect modern advances through peer-reviewed papers, short communications, meeting proceedings and case reports.