A model of evaluative opinion to encourage greater transparency and justification of interpretation in post-mortem forensic toxicology

Peter D Maskell*, Simon Elliott, Brigitte Desharnais, Martin Findell, Graham Jackson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)
45 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Over the past decades, the calls to improve the robustness of interpretation in forensic science have increased in magnitude. Forensic toxicology has seen limited progress in this regard. In this work, we propose a transparent interpretive pathway for use in postmortem forensic toxicology cases. This process allows the selection of the interpretive methodology based on the amount of previous information that is available for the drug(s) in question. One approach is an assessment of various pharmacological and circumstantial considerations resulting in a toxicological significance score (TSS), which is particularly useful in situations where limited information about a drug is available. When there is a robust amount of case data available, then a probabilistic approach, through the evaluation of likelihood ratios by the forensic toxicologist and of prior probabilities by the fact finder, is utilized. This methodology provides a transparent means of making an interpretive decision on the role of a drug in the cause of death. This will allow the field of forensic toxicology to take a step forward in using best practice in evaluative reporting, a tool already used by many other forensic science disciplines.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberbkad055
Pages (from-to)563-573
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Analytical Toxicology
Volume47
Issue number7
Early online date11 Aug 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Sept 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A model of evaluative opinion to encourage greater transparency and justification of interpretation in post-mortem forensic toxicology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this