IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0353958.html

Integrated machine learning for cause-of-death classification and postmortem interval prediction: Liver and kidney metabolomics from seawater-immersed rat cadavers

Author

Listed:
  • Jianghuan Lu
  • Yuzhao Xu
  • Siqi Chen
  • Zhiao Duan
  • Yixin Ma
  • Xiaoshi Qin
  • Yunchao Zhou
  • Shan Ha
  • Jianhua Chen
  • Jianqiang Deng

Abstract

Purpose: To assess whether liver and kidney metabolomics combined with machine learning can distinguish seawater drowning from postmortem submersion after CO2 euthanasia and estimate postmortem interval (PMI) under controlled conditions. Methods: Sixty male Sprague–Dawley rats were assigned to a seawater-drowning group or a postmortem-submersion group after CO2 euthanasia (30 per group). Liver and kidney tissues were collected at 0, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h after death and analyzed by untargeted LC–MS/MS. Principal component analysis (PCA) and cross-validated orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) were used to characterize global metabolic variation. Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), and Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT) were evaluated using repeated 10-fold cross-validation (five repeats; 50 folds in total). PMI-specific XGBoost models used 20 metabolites selected within each training fold by absolute Spearman correlation and were assessed by repeated 10-fold and leave-one-time-point-out cross-validation. SHAP analysis summarized feature contributions. Results: PCA showed that dominant metabolic variation was mainly associated with PMI, with substantial overlap between the two groups in the PC1–PC2 space. Cross-validated OPLS-DA identified group-associated structure in liver and kidney, with Q2(cum) values of 0.847 and 0.723, respectively. Mean classification AUCs ranged from 0.973 to 0.996 in liver and from 0.931 to 1.000 in kidney. Under repeated 10-fold cross-validation, the liver and kidney PMI models achieved MAEs of 4.78 and 4.05 h and R2 values of 0.823 and 0.892, respectively. Under leave-one-time-point-out cross-validation, MAEs increased to 13.52 and 13.64 h, while R2 values were 0.587 and 0.592. SHAP analysis showed partly different metabolite contribution patterns between the two organs. Conclusion: In this controlled rat model, liver and kidney metabolomic profiles combined with machine learning supported discrimination between seawater drowning and postmortem submersion after CO2 euthanasia and captured PMI-related metabolic changes. The classification models, PMI-specific XGBoost regression models, and SHAP analyses characterized organ-specific metabolite patterns associated with discrimination between the two modeled conditions and PMI prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Jianghuan Lu & Yuzhao Xu & Siqi Chen & Zhiao Duan & Yixin Ma & Xiaoshi Qin & Yunchao Zhou & Shan Ha & Jianhua Chen & Jianqiang Deng, 2026. "Integrated machine learning for cause-of-death classification and postmortem interval prediction: Liver and kidney metabolomics from seawater-immersed rat cadavers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(7), pages 1-19, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0353958
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353958
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0353958
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0353958&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0353958?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrius Vabalas & Emma Gowen & Ellen Poliakoff & Alexander J Casson, 2019. "Machine learning algorithm validation with a limited sample size," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-20, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li-Dunn Chen & Michael A Caprio & Devin M Chen & Andrew J Kouba & Carrie K Kouba, 2024. "Enhancing predictive performance for spectroscopic studies in wildlife science through a multi-model approach: A case study for species classification of live amphibians," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Ephrem Habyarimana & Faheem S Baloch, 2021. "Machine learning models based on remote and proximal sensing as potential methods for in-season biomass yields prediction in commercial sorghum fields," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-23, March.
    3. Stephan Breimann & Frits Kamp & Gabriele Basset & Claudia Abou-Ajram & Gökhan Güner & Kanta Yanagida & Masayasu Okochi & Stephan A. Müller & Stefan F. Lichtenthaler & Dieter Langosch & Dmitrij Frishma, 2025. "Charting γ-secretase substrates by explainable AI," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Leandro C. Hermida & E. Michael Gertz & Eytan Ruppin, 2022. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Predicting cancer prognosis and drug response from the tumor microbiome," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Gaur, Ajai & Peng, Evelyn Lin & Pattnaik, Chinmay & Li, Yi, 2026. "Advancing international business research through artificial intelligence and machine learning applications," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 61(3).
    6. Dell’Anna, Federico, 2025. "Machine learning framework for evaluating energy performance certificate (EPC) effectiveness in real estate: A case study of Turin’s private residential market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    7. Ciaran Michael Kelly & Russell Lewis McLaughlin, 2024. "Comparison of machine learning methods for genomic prediction of selected Arabidopsis thaliana traits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-13, August.
    8. Reza Rezaee & Jamiu Ekundayo, 2022. "Permeability Prediction Using Machine Learning Methods for the CO 2 Injectivity of the Precipice Sandstone in Surat Basin, Australia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Nica-Avram, Georgiana & Harvey, John & Smith, Gavin & Smith, Andrew & Goulding, James, 2021. "Identifying food insecurity in food sharing networks via machine learning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 469-484.
    10. Kristof Lommers & Ouns El Harzli & Jack Kim, 2021. "Confronting Machine Learning With Financial Research," Papers 2103.00366, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2021.
    11. Zhou, Huanyu & Qiu, Yingning & Feng, Yanhui & Liu, Jing, 2022. "Power prediction of wind turbine in the wake using hybrid physical process and machine learning models," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 568-586.
    12. Bruttel, Lisa & Nithammer, Juri, 2025. "Opinion Piece: How to pre-register experimental studies that involve machine learning for text data analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Mahdi Goldani & Soraya Asadi Tirvan, 2024. "Sensitivity Assessing to Data Volume for forecasting: introducing similarity methods as a suitable one in Feature selection methods," Papers 2406.04390, arXiv.org.
    14. Alexis H. Villacis & Syed Badruddoza & Ashok K. Mishra, 2024. "A machine learning‐based exploration of resilience and food security," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(4), pages 1479-1505, December.
    15. Qianru Qi & Rongjun Cheng & Hongxia Ge, 2022. "Short-Term Travel Demand Prediction of Online Ride-Hailing Based on Multi-Factor GRU Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Shravankumar Shivappa Masalvad & Chidanand Patil & Akkaram Pravalika & Basavaraj Katageri & Purandara Bekal & Prashant Patil & Nagraj Hegde & Uttam Kumar Sahoo & Praveen Kumar Sakare, 2024. "Application of geospatial technology for the land use/land cover change assessment and future change predictions using CA Markov chain model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(10), pages 24817-24842, October.
    17. repec:bcp:journl:v:10:y:2026:i:5:p:2597-2611 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Min Yang & Baiyu Zhang & Yifu Chen & Xiaying Xin & Kenneth Lee & Bing Chen, 2021. "Impact of Microplastics on Oil Dispersion Efficiency in the Marine Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-13, December.
    19. Michael D. Wang & Jie Lou & Dong Zhang & C. Simon Fan, 2022. "Measuring political and economic uncertainty: a supervised computational linguistic approach," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(5), pages 1-17, May.
    20. Twumasi, Clement & Twumasi, Juliet, 2022. "Machine learning algorithms for forecasting and backcasting blood demand data with missing values and outliers: A study of Tema General Hospital of Ghana," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1258-1277.
    21. Gregory Hoy & Thomas Cortier & Hannah E. Maier & Guillermina Kuan & Roger Lopez & Nery Sanchez & Sergio Ojeda & Miguel Plazaola & Daniel Stadlbauer & Abigail Shotwell & Angel Balmaseda & Florian Kramm, 2025. "Anti-neuraminidase and anti-HA stalk antibodies reduce the susceptibility to and infectivity of influenza A/H3N2 virus," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-12, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0353958. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.