“…However, they all have significant flaws in reliability and accuracy [ 20 , 21 ] and are an ongoing challenge in forensic medicine. At present, the following methods have been proposed in addition to the external physical appearance: histopathological surveys [ [22] , [23] , [24] ], reactions with mineral acids, reactions with benzidine, nitrogen loss [ 25 ], molecular biology [ [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] ], high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [ 32 ], metabolomics [ 33 ], UV–Vis methods [ [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] ], radioisotope measurements [ [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] ], luminol chemiluminescent reactions [ 40 , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] ], X-ray diffraction [ [48] , [49] , [50] ], spectroscopic technology [ 37 , [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] ], post-mortem computed tomography (CT) [ 64 ], micro-CT [ 18 , 50 ], visible and thermal 3D imaging [ 65 ], and entomological methods (succession model, carrion insect development) [ 66 ]. All available information from these techniques can be considered the gold standard, but despite the many different methods, the forensic estimation of PMI is still challenging [ 53 ].…”