The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Testing the Use of Pigs as Human Proxies in Decomposition Studies
Abstract
Pigs are a common human analogue in taphonomic study, yet data comparing the trajectory of decomposition between the two groups are lacking. This study compared decomposition rate and gross tissue change in 17 pigs and 22 human remains placed in the Forensic Investigation Research Station in western Colorado between 2012 and 2015. Accumulated degree days ( ADD ) were used to assess the number of thermal units required to reach a given total body score ( TBS ) (1) which was used as the measure of decomposition. A comparison of slopes in linear mixed effects model indicated that decomposition rates significantly differed between human donors and pig remains χ 2 (1) = 5.662, p = 0.017. Neither the pig nor the human trajectory compared well to the TBS model. Thus, (i) pigs are not an adequate proxy for human decomposition studies, and (ii) in the semiarid environment of western Colorado, there is a need to develop a regional decomposition model.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Previously published systematic reviews of forensic decomposition experiments focus on decomposition, arthropod activity, or general experimental design and analysis in forensic taphonomy, rather than explicitly looking at scavenging and scattering.
“previously published systematic reviews of forensic decomposition experiments focus on decomposition, arthropod activity, or general experimental design and analysis in forensic taphonomy [26 -29], rather than explicitly looking at scavenging and scattering.”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Results from animal studies need validation on humans and should not be directly transferred to forensic (anthropological) cases.
“results from animal studies need validation on humans and should not be directly transferred to forensic (anthropo logical) cases, as stressed in several publications [27,28,138,142].”
From Forensic experiments on animal scavenging: A systematic literature review on what we have and what we need (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Megyesi M, 2005, Using accumulated degree‐days to estimate the postmortem interval from decomposed human remains, J Forensic Sci, 5, 618
- 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01161.x · DOI
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12388 · DOI
- 10.1520/JFS11524J · DOI
- 10.2307/2422385 · DOI
- 10.1093/jmedent/44.5.881 · DOI
- Haskell NH, 2002, Testing reliability of animal models in research and training programs in forensic entomology, part II, final report
- Shafer W, 1978, The ecology and paleoecology of marine environments
- 10.2307/1934999 · DOI
- Micozzi MS, 1991, Postmortem change in human and animal remains: a systematic approach
- 10.1111/1556-4029.12115 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13389 · DOI
- DautartasAM JantzLM VidoliGM SteadmanDW.A multidisciplinary validation study of non‐human animal models for decomposition research: a time series approach. Proceedings of the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; 2015 Feb 16‐21; Orlando FL. Colorado Springs CO: American Academy of Forensic Sciences 2015.
- Spears CF, 1978, Soil survey of Mesa County area, Colorado
- 10.1520/JFS13311J · DOI
- 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · DOI · Paper page
- R Core Team, 2017, R: A language and environment for statistical computing
- 10.1016/j.tim.2011.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/1556-4029.13390 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jflm.2010.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.05.024 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.micpath.2007.10.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.rvsc.2017.05.016 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Indra, L., Lösch, S., Errickson, D., & Finaughty, D. (2023) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111862 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Connor, M., Baigent, C., & Hansen, E. S.
- Affiliations
- Colorado Mesa University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Connor, Melissa
- ORCID
- Connor, Melissa
- Venue
- Journal of Forensic Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-12-28
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1350-1355
- ISSN
- 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-4029
- OpenAlex
- W2780605673
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 5.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Autopsy Techniques and Outcomes
- Keywords
- human remains decomposition, decomposition rate, total body score, accumulated degree days, taphonomy, semi-arid ecosystems, western Colorado
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cadaver, Female, Humans, Male, Postmortem Changes, Sunlight, Swine, Temperature, Linear Models, Models, Animal, 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
