Collaborative Forensic Autopsy Documentation and Supervised Report Generation Using a Hybrid Mixed-Reality Environment and Generative AI
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forensic investigation is a complex procedure involving experts working together to establish cause of death and report findings to legal authorities. While new technologies are being developed to provide better post-mortem imaging capabilities-including mixed-reality (MR) tools to support 3D visualisation of such data-these tools do not integrate seamlessly into their existing collaborative workflow and report authoring process, requiring extra steps, e.g. to extract imagery from the MR tool and combine with physical autopsy findings for inclusion in the report. Therefore, in this work we design and evaluate a new forensic autopsy report generation workflow and present a novel documentation system using hybrid mixed-reality approaches to integrate visualisation, voice and hand interaction, as well as collaboration and procedure recording. Our preliminary findings indicate that this approach has the potential to improve data management, aid reviewability, and thus, achieve more robust standards. Further, it potentially streamlines report generation and minimise dependency on external tools and assistance, reducing autopsy time and related costs. This system also offers significant potential for education. A free copy of this paper and all supplemental materials are available at https://osf.io/ygfzx.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it