CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Forensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Peri-mortem disease treatment: a little known cause of error in the estimation of the time since death in decomposing human remains

Hayman, Jarvis, Oxenham, Marc·2016·Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
DOI 10.1080/00450618.2015.1042048
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As part of a larger study into the estimation of the time since death of human bodies found decomposed, two bodies were monitored closely while decomposing in sequence in almost identical environmental situations. Both the rate and the manner, or stages, of decomposition that occurred to each body varied greatly and it is suggested that this was due to peri-mortem disease treatment of one of the bodies immediately prior to death. The results of this study suggest that certain forms of peri-mortem disease treatment are more important in modifying the process of post-mortem decomposition than previously thought to be case. In particular, cytotoxic drugs and/or antibiotic drug treatments in the peri-mortem period may contribute to altered rates and patterns of decomposition that have the potential to affect the estimation of the time since death in human bodies found decomposed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00450618.2015.1042048

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Davy J, 1839, Researches, physiological and anatomical, 1
  2. 10.1016/0379-0738(92)90155-P · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0379-0738(88)90214-9 · DOI
  4. Komar DA, 1998, Alberta. J Forensic Sci, 43, 57, 10.1520/JFS16090J · DOI
  5. 10.1520/JFS11017J · DOI
  6. Vass AA, 2002, J Forensic Sci, 47, 542, 10.1520/JFS15294J · DOI
  7. 10.1520/JFS2004017 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.031 · DOI
  9. 10.2307/1934999 · DOI
  10. 10.1520/JFS11524J · DOI
  11. 10.1080/00450610209410839 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.11.011 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/jfo.2009.54.issue-3 · DOI
  14. 10.1520/JFS12806J · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.02.012 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/0379-0738(89)90087-X · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.033 · DOI
  18. 10.1520/JFS12680J · DOI
  19. 10.1111/jfo.2007.52.issue-5 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.07.023 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.08.015 · DOI
  22. 10.1520/JFS13311J · DOI
  23. Clark MA, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 9
  24. Bass WM, 1987, Death, decay and reconstruction. Approaches to archaeology and forensic science, 17, 3
  25. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.109 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.107 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/jfo.2007.52.issue-2 · DOI
  28. 10.1520/JFS12446 · DOI
  29. 10.1520/JFS12427J · DOI
  30. 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00411-X · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.04.018 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Bass WM, 2003, Death’s acre, 68
  33. 10.1258/jrsm.95.3.151 · DOI
  34. 10.1111/jfo.2010.55.issue-4 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/jfo.2010.55.issue-4 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.10.016 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.09.025 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.09.017 · DOI
  39. 10.1136/pgmj.62.729.665 · DOI
  40. 10.1161/01.CIR.0000103683.99399.7E · DOI
  41. 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90511-3 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/S0163-4453(86)94112-5 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1111/jfo.2010.56.issue-1 · DOI
  45. 10.1093/jmedent/44.3.516 · DOI
  46. 10.1520/JFS13964J · DOI
  47. 10.1017/S0007485311000241 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.04.016 · DOI
  49. Boyer MJ, 2003, Aust Prescr, 26, 103, 10.18773/austprescr.2003.079 · DOI
  50. Bonaventura A, 1995, Aust Prescr, 18, 65, 10.18773/austprescr.1995.066 · DOI
  51. 10.1111/jop.2010.40.issue-1 · DOI
  52. Gill-King H, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 95
  53. Clark MA, 1997, Forensic taphonomy: the postmortem fate of human remains, 9
  54. Knight B, 1991, Simpson’s forensic medicine
  55. 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.05.050 · DOI
  56. 10.1093/jmedent/32.5.646 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/0012-1606(64)90031-4 · DOI
  58. 10.1159/000148251 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hayman, J., & Oxenham, M.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Oxenham, Marc
ORCID
Venue
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-06-23
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
171-185
ISSN
  • 0045-0618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1834-562X
DOI
10.1080/00450618.2015.1042048
OpenAlex
W2219443353
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Endeavour Research Fellowship
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Keywords
postmortem interval estimation, postmortem decomposition, decomposition rate, cytotoxic drugs, antibiotic therapy, forensic pathology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review