0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Artificial intelligence in the practice of forensic medicine: a scoping review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Forensic medicine is a thriving application field for artificial intelligence (AI). Indeed, AI applications intended to forensic pathologists or forensic physicians have emerged since the last decade. For example, AI models were developed to help estimate the biological age of migrants or human remains. However, the uses of AI applications by forensic pathologists or physicians and their levels of integration in medicolegal practices are not well described yet. Therefore, a scoping review was conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases. This review included articles that mention any AI application used by forensic pathologists or physicians in practice or any AI model applied in one expertise field of the forensic pathologist or physician. Articles in other languages than English or French or dealing mainly with complementary analyses handled by experts who are not forensic pathologists or physicians or with AI to analyze data for research purposes in forensic medicine were excluded from this review. All the relevant information was retrieved in each article from a grid analysis derived and adapted from the TRIPOD checklist. This review included 35 articles and revealed that AI applications are developed in thanatology and in clinical forensic medicine. However, those applications seem to mainly remain in research and development stages. Indeed, the use of AI applications by forensic pathologists or physicians is not actual due to issues discussed in this article. Finally, the integration of AI in daily medicolegal practice involves not only forensic pathologists or physicians but also legal professionals.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00414-023-03140-9.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration

              The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                laurent.tournois@biosilicium.fr
                Journal
                Int J Legal Med
                Int J Legal Med
                International Journal of Legal Medicine
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0937-9827
                1437-1596
                13 December 2023
                13 December 2023
                2024
                : 138
                : 3
                : 1023-1037
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Université Paris Cité, ( https://ror.org/05f82e368) CNRS UMR 8045, 75006 Paris, France
                [2 ]BioSilicium, Riom, France
                [3 ]GRID grid.11318.3a, ISNI 0000000121496883, IRIS Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire Sur Les Enjeux Sociaux, , UMR8156 CNRS – U997 Inserm – EHESS – Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, ; Paris, France
                [4 ]Department of Forensic and Social Medicine, AP-HP, Jean Verdier Hospital, ( https://ror.org/04pag4b70) Bondy, France
                [5 ]Institut Médico-Légal de Paris, Paris, France
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7546-0173
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2184-9428
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2849-6082
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6331-5526
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2415-9708
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3038-479X
                Article
                3140
                10.1007/s00414-023-03140-9
                11003914
                38087052
                49ab436d-f44d-41cb-a2bf-36c7879fdce8
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 13 February 2023
                : 21 November 2023
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024

                Law
                artificial intelligence,forensic medicine,medicolegal practice,forensic pathologist,routine
                Law
                artificial intelligence, forensic medicine, medicolegal practice, forensic pathologist, routine

                Comments

                Comment on this article