alexa Bridging the Gap between the 'How' and the 'Why' in Forensic Biomechanics | OMICS International
ISSN: 2090-2697
Journal of Forensic Biomechanics
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Bridging the Gap between the 'How' and the 'Why' in Forensic Biomechanics

Kinda Khalaf*

Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Khalifa University, UAE

Corresponding Author:
Kinda Khalaf, Ph.D
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Khalifa University
Tel: +971 (2)-401-8107
Fax: +971 (2)-447-2447
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: March 24, 2015; Accepted date: March 24, 2015; Published date: April 01, 2015

Citation: Khalaf K (2015) A Bridging the Gap between the “How” and the “Why” in Forensic Biomechanics. J Forensic Biomed 4:e106. doi: 10.4172/2090-2697.1000e106

Copyright: © 2015 Khalaf K, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Forensic Biomechanics

Editorial

In spite of the vast and constant advancements in the field of Biomechanics in the past few decades, many court decisions continue to question its applicability in forensic settings. This may partly be attributed to the realization that the biomechanical data collected in experimental and/or computational frameworks could significantly vary from real life traumatic settings, as well as the complexity inherent to devising standardized reliable quantitative metrics for forensic biomechanical assessment. Specifically, while forensic biomechanics tools and methodologies may at present adequately explain the “how” aspect of an injury, there continues to be considerable limitations regarding the “whether” or causation aspect.

The main challenge in establishing the causation stems from the inherent dependence of the outcome/conclusions on risk and probability considerations, which poses various constraints.

In 1965, English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill devised what became known as The Bradford Hill criteria or Hill’s criteria for causation. These primarily consist of 9 minimal conditions necessary to provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship between an incidence and a possible consequence. Hill’s criteria provided the foundation for all subsequent approaches to causation. The field of Forensic epidemiology consequently emerged providing systematic means for quantifying causal determinations in legal and forensic settings. Two main types of causal assessment are typically identified: population-based or general causation and individual based or specific causation. Metrics such as Bayes law were proposed for quantifying the potential error involved in establishing biomechanical plausibility and causal determination.

In their paper entitled “Applications and Limitations of Forensic Biomechanics:A Bayesian perspective”, Freeman et al. presented an Error Odds (OE) analysis of seven previously published case studies in forensic biomechanics as means to validate OE as a quantitative metric that can be used to enhance court admissibility. Their results showed that based on OE, only 1 out of the 7 presented cases exceeded the threshold of 10 for admissible testimony, hence emphasizing the large potential of error. When these results were combined with pre-test probability, they improved substantially. On the other hand, the adoption of standard quantitative methods that could be used to reliably determine causation resulting from a traumatic event remains a challenge.

Since it is well established that forensic biomechanics assessment is most accurate and reliable in explaining the “how” aspect of an injury as compared to the “whether” aspect, perhaps the forensic biomechanics community needs to dedicate more time and creativity focusing on the latter. Researchers in the field already realize the value of matching injury mechanisms with expected/observed injuries as means of causal determination. Leveraging recent advances from other fields may be one step in the right direction. The recent significant computational advancements in data mining, predictive analytics and cloud computing should enable the large-scale integration of biomechanics with epidemiology in forensic settings. The development and sharing of various epidemiological databases and banks spanning different populations that may be used in alignment with biomechanical approaches and tools could provide means for improving the current outcomes.

Finally, in a field where one not only needs to identify the pieces of the puzzle but also to align them properly, it is critical to have multidisciplinary teams working together. A team composed of various experts such as a forensic medical doctor, epidemiologist, biomechanician, biostatistician, and geneticist, among others has much better chances at identifying and linking the “how” with the “whether” and bridging the gap between the two. The forensic biomechanics community only stands to benefit when such a team integrates the methods and tools from their perspective fields towards devising new innovative tools and metrics for quantitative biomechanical assessment that could be reliably used in court

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11779
  • [From(publication date):
    March-2015 - Dec 15, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 7974
  • PDF downloads : 3805
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version