The Forensic Pathologist's Contribution to a Correct Postmortem Diagnosis

Schotman Streeting^*
*Correspondence: Schotman Streeting, Department of Analytical, Environmental & Forensic Sciences, King’s College London, London SE1 9NH, UK, Email:

Introduction

The field of forensic pathology plays a crucial role in legal investigations by determining the cause and manner of death in cases of unexplained or suspicious deaths. The forensic pathologist, through the postmortem examination, is tasked with uncovering information that may be vital for criminal investigations, insurance claims, or the resolution of disputes. In recent years, technological advancements have dramatically altered the landscape of forensic pathology, with one of the most significant developments being the use of sensors in postmortem diagnostics. Sensors, which are devices capable of detecting physical, chemical, or biological changes, are increasingly becoming a staple in forensic pathology. Their integration into postmortem investigations enhances the ability of pathologists to assess various factors of a body, from the detection of toxins and drugs to the evaluation of environmental conditions and the identification of trauma. These advancements are contributing to more accurate diagnoses, more efficient investigations and a deeper understanding of the circumstances surrounding death [1].

By considering the contributions that sensors make to forensic investigations, this article highlights their importance in providing a more precise and reliable postmortem diagnosis. Forensic pathology involves the medical examination of a body after death to determine the cause, manner and mechanism of death. This is achieved through a combination of visual inspection, histopathological examination, toxicological analysis and, in some cases, radiological imaging. In the past, the practice of forensic pathology relied heavily on gross anatomical examination and limited laboratory tests. However, the integration of sensors has transformed the way pathologists approach their investigations. These sensors provide a more detailed and multifaceted understanding of the body and its condition at the time of death, enhancing the pathologist's ability to make accurate postmortem diagnoses [1,2].

Description

Several types of sensors are currently being utilized in forensic pathology, each serving different purposes. These include chemical, physical and biological sensors, each with distinct applications and benefits. Toxicology plays a central role in forensic pathology, particularly when investigating potential drug overdoses, poisoning, or substance abuse-related deaths. Traditional methods for detecting toxins involve collecting blood, urine, or tissue samples and analyzing them in a laboratory. However, sensors are providing more rapid and efficient means for detecting drugs and poisons. These sensors detect specific biological molecules that are associated with toxins, drugs, or other substances in the body. For example, immunosensors can be used to identify drugs, alcohol, or poisons by detecting the presence of antibodies or antigens. Electrochemical sensors measure changes in electrical properties when substances interact with electrodes. They can detect a wide range of drugs and poisons, including alcohol, opioids and other common toxic substances. Techniques like Raman and infrared spectroscopy are being employed to analyze chemical composition, identifying substances in the blood or tissues of the deceased. Toxicological sensors can not only detect substances in bodily fluids but can also be used to quantify their concentrations. This is critical in determining whether a drug or toxin played a role in causing death [3].

The Postmortem Interval (PMI)-the time that has passed since deathis a key consideration in forensic investigations. The use of environmental sensors can help pathologists estimate the PMI more accurately by measuring changes in temperature, humidity and other environmental factors around the body. Temperature is one of the most reliable indicators of the time of death, as the body cools at a predictable rate after death. Thermal sensors, including infrared thermometers and temperature-sensitive tags, can be placed on the body to monitor the cooling process, providing more precise PMI estimates. In combination with temperature data, sensors that measure atmospheric pressure and humidity can help refine PMI estimates. These factors influence the rate at which the body cools or decomposes, especially in varying environmental conditions. These sensors can be used to detect movement or changes in position, which can help establish whether the body has been moved after death. These sensors, combined with forensic entomology (the study of insect activity on the body), can greatly improve the accuracy of PMI estimation, which is crucial for determining the timeline of death in relation to suspects and events in a criminal investigation. Trauma is often a key factor in determining the cause of death. In cases of violent death, forensic pathologists must assess the nature and extent of injuries. While visual inspection and radiography have traditionally been used, modern sensors are providing more precise and non-invasive methods to analyze injuries [4].

While individual sensors provide valuable information, their real power lies in their integration into a comprehensive diagnostic system. A pathologist can now combine data from multiple sensors-such as temperature, toxicological analysis, radiological imaging and microbial sensors-into a single diagnostic framework. This integrated approach enhances the accuracy and reliability of the postmortem diagnosis, making it easier to determine the cause of death, identify external factors (like poisoning or trauma) and estimate the time of death. Incorporating sensors into routine forensic practice also allows for a more standardized approach to postmortem investigations. Instead of relying solely on subjective observations, forensic pathologists can base their diagnoses on quantitative data collected from a variety of sensor types. This can lead to more consistent and reproducible results, reducing the chances of errors or misdiagnosis [5].

Conclusion

Sensors have become indispensable tools in the forensic pathologist's toolkit, offering new and enhanced ways to diagnose the cause and manner of death. From toxicological analysis to trauma detection, temperature monitoring and environmental assessment, sensors provide objective, quantifiable data that improves the accuracy and efficiency of postmortem examinations. They help forensic pathologists make more informed decisions, contributing to a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding death. While sensors are not without their limitations-such as issues with calibration, sensitivity, or the need for specialized training-their benefits far outweigh these challenges. With the ongoing advancement of sensor technology, the future of forensic pathology looks promising. Pathologists will be able to rely more heavily on these tools to make accurate, science-based conclusions, ultimately improving the quality of postmortem diagnoses and contributing to the pursuit of justice. As the field continues to evolve, it is likely that sensors will play an increasingly central role in forensic investigations. Their integration with other cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and digital forensics promises to revolutionize the way death investigations are conducted, making forensic pathology an even more powerful tool in the pursuit of truth and justice.

Acknowledgement

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticisms of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares there is no conflict of interest associated with this manuscript.

References

1. Dona, Inmaculada, Maria Salas, James R Perkins and Esther Barrionuevo, et al. "Hypersensitivity reactions to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs." Curr Pharm Des 22 (2016): 6784-6802.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. LoVerde, D., O. Iweala, A. Eginli and G. Krishnaswamy. Anaphylaxis Chest 153 (2): 528–543. 2018.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Byard, Roger W. "Anaphylaxis at autopsy." Forensic Sci Med Pathol 13 (2017): 269-271.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Blumenthal, Kimberly G., James L. Kuhlen Jr, Ana A. Weil and Christy A. Varughese, et al. "Adverse drug reactions associated with ceftaroline use: A 2-center retrospective cohort." J Allergy Clin Immunol 4 (2016): 740-746.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Blumenthal, Kimberly G., Jonny G. Peter, Jason A. Trubiano and Elizabeth J. Phillips. "Antibiotic allergy." Lancet 393 (2019): 183-198.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at