Forensic Dermatology of Postmortem Tanning: A Unique Phenomenon That Can Occur After Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postmortem tanning, previously referred to as either postmortem suntan or postmortem sunburn, presents as hyperpigmentation of sun-exposed uncovered skin. It most commonly occurs in decedents who remain in an environment in which the ambient temperature is either warm or hot; the areas of the corpse that are exposed to the sun develop hyperpigmentation. This postmortem change usually appears in the fresh (first) stage of decomposition. We describe three decedents who developed postmortem tanning. One of the women has an extensive severe darkening of her skin in the distribution where her skin was exposed to sunlight. The second woman had a localized band of pronounced tanning on her lower abdomen; associated early decomposition had occurred, including skin slippage and possible marbling of the superficial veins, at the location of the tanning. The third case, a young man, showed the concurrent presence of keratosis pilaris on his extensor arms that were affected by the tanning. In contrast to livor mortis, postmortem tanning occurs on the skin that is located on the non-dependent side of the body, those areas most apt to be exposed to sunlight. In living individuals, melanogenesis-associated tanning is usually an oxygen-dependent process. In decedents, blood flow and oxygen delivery to the skin that becomes darkened/hyperpigmented is not mandatory. Areas for future investigation include description of the histologic appearance of the tanned skin in comparison to adjacent, non-tanned skin, the incidence of postmortem tanning, the factors that may accelerate or decelerate the occurrence of postmortem tanning, and the possible correlation of the appearance of postmortem tanning as a feature that can be used to reveal information for estimating the postmortem interval.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".