死后间隔估计的进展:跨不同组织类型的机器学习和代谢组学的系统综述。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Abdulkreem Abdullah AlJuhani, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Farouq Faisal Alzahrani
{"title":"死后间隔估计的进展:跨不同组织类型的机器学习和代谢组学的系统综述。","authors":"Abdulkreem Abdullah AlJuhani, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Farouq Faisal Alzahrani","doi":"10.1007/s12024-025-01026-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional 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.</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, metabolic profiling technique, machine learning algorithms, potential PMI markers, and model performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We 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<sup>2</sup> > 0.99, MAE 1.18-2.37 h). Lu et al. (2022) achieved 93% accuracy with a multi-organ stacking model. Other promising models include Zhang et al.'s (2017) nu-SVM on pericardial fluid (RMSE = 2.38 h) and Sato et al.'s (2015) PLS model on cardiac blood (MAE = 5.73 h).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cardiac 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12449,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advances in postmortem interval estimation: A systematic review of machine learning and metabolomics across various tissue types.\",\"authors\":\"Abdulkreem Abdullah AlJuhani, Rodan Mahmoud Desoky, Abdulaziz A Binshalhoub, Mohammed Jamaan Alzahrani, Mofareh Shubban Alraythi, Farouq Faisal Alzahrani\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12024-025-01026-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional 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.</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, metabolic profiling technique, machine learning algorithms, potential PMI markers, and model performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We 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<sup>2</sup> > 0.99, MAE 1.18-2.37 h). Lu et al. (2022) achieved 93% accuracy with a multi-organ stacking model. Other promising models include Zhang et al.'s (2017) nu-SVM on pericardial fluid (RMSE = 2.38 h) and Sato et al.'s (2015) PLS model on cardiac blood (MAE = 5.73 h).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cardiac 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"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/s12024-025-01026-3\",\"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/s12024-025-01026-3","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:传统的死后间隔(PMI)估计方法依赖于可观察到的变化,如尸僵、尸深和尸深,但经常受到环境因素的影响。代谢组学与核磁共振(NMR)和质谱等技术相结合,通过识别死后的生化变化,提高了准确性。机器学习方法,如主成分分析(PCA)、偏最小二乘(PLS)和支持向量机(svm),通过分析代谢物数据来增强PMI预测。本综述旨在总结使用机器学习进行PMI估计的进展,并确定组织样本和准确预测算法的最佳组合。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、代谢分析技术、机器学习算法、潜在的PMI标记物和模型性能。结果:我们比较了机器学习模型在不同组织中的PMI估计。Zhang等人(2022)在使用心脏血液的随机森林(RF)模型中表现最佳,通过选择关键代谢物,平均绝对误差(MAE)为1.067 h。Wu et al.(2017)随后采用正交信号校正PLS模型(R2 > 0.99, MAE 1.18-2.37 h)。Lu等人(2022)使用多器官堆叠模型实现了93%的准确率。其他有前景的模型包括Zhang等人(2017)的心包液nu-SVM (RMSE = 2.38 h)和Sato等人(2015)的心脏血液PLS模型(MAE = 5.73 h)。结论:随机森林模型对短时间PMIs的预测效果最好,而骨骼肌模型和堆叠模型对长时间PMIs的预测效果最好。未来的研究应该完善和验证这些发现,并将这些发现扩展到人类受试者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Advances in postmortem interval estimation: A systematic review of machine learning and metabolomics across various tissue types.

Background: Traditional 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.

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, metabolic profiling technique, machine learning algorithms, potential PMI markers, and model performance.

Results: We 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 (R2 > 0.99, MAE 1.18-2.37 h). Lu et al. (2022) achieved 93% accuracy with a multi-organ stacking model. Other promising models include Zhang et al.'s (2017) nu-SVM on pericardial fluid (RMSE = 2.38 h) and Sato et al.'s (2015) PLS model on cardiac blood (MAE = 5.73 h).

Conclusion: Cardiac 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology MEDICINE, LEGAL-PATHOLOGY
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信