Author:
Habibi-Chenaran Sogand,Samadirad Bahram,Miandoab Amir Torab,Rezaei-Hachesu Peyman,Soltani Taha Samad
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Forensic medicine is crucial in ensuring that the law and justice are carried out as swiftly, effectively, clearly, and accurately as possible. The significant number and interactions of forensic clinical examination variables, the complexity of their differentiation, and the existence of multiple decision-making paths can lead to erroneous decisions that cause irreparable harm to individuals and society. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a decision support system for determining the amount of wergild and compensation based on forensic medicine clinical examinations and the severity of the patient’s injury.
Methods
A total of 264 data elements and decision-making rules were identified based on an analysis of information sources and focus group discussions. In addition, a decision tree was used to organize the decision-making rules. Then, a system was developed using algorithms for intelligent decision-making. We included 500 patients in our analysis. This system was ultimately evaluated based on the following criteria: precision and accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, usability, and documentation quality.
Results
The results indicated that the precision and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the system were 100%. Furthermore, the documentation quality (completeness) increased from 78.2 to 100%. The average score for system usability was 4.35 out of 5, indicating a highly acceptable range.
Conclusion
The designed system was effective and beneficial for forensic clinical examinations and quantifying physical damage (wergild and compensation). Therefore, this system can be utilized in forensic medicine’s administrative and clinical processes, and its production and commercialization will result in an adequate market penetration rate. In addition, this will empower forensic medicine physicians and reduce decision-making errors.
Graphical Abstract
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Health (social science),Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference37 articles.
1. Ahmadi M, Mohammadi A, Chraghbaigi R, Fathi T, Baghini MSJIRCMJ (2014) Developing a minimum data set of the information management system for orthopedic injuries in iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J 16(7):e17020
2. Akbari N, Safdari R, Mansourian A, Ehtesham HJMEJOC (2022) Development of a national consensus minimum data set for the diagnosis and treatment of oral cancer: towards precision management. Mid East J Cancer 13:343–351
3. Aktas, N., Gulacti, U., Lok, U., Aydin, İ., Borta, T., Celik, M. J. B. O. E. & Trauma 2018. Characteristics of the traumatic forensic cases admitted to emergency department and errors in the forensic report writing Bull Emerg Trauma 6, 64.
4. Arshad H, Jantan AB, Abiodun OIJJOIPS (2018) Digital forensics: review of issues in scientific validation of digital evidence. J Inform Process Syst 14
5. Bell S, Sah S, Albright TD, Gates SJ Jr, Denton MB, Casadevall AJPOTNAOS (2018) A call for more science in forensic science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:4541–4544