↓ Skip to main content

Identifying cases of heroin toxicity where 6-acetylmorphine (6-AM) is not detected by toxicological analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Identifying cases of heroin toxicity where 6-acetylmorphine (6-AM) is not detected by toxicological analyses
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12024-016-9780-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley D. Ellis, Gerald McGwin, Gregory G. Davis, Daniel W. Dye

Abstract

Heroin has a half-life of 2-6 min and is metabolized too quickly to be detected in autopsy samples. The presence of 6-acetylmophine (6-AM) in urine, blood, or other samples is convincing evidence of heroin use by a decedent, but 6-AM itself has a half-life of 6-25 min before it is hydrolyzed to morphine, so 6-AM may not be present in sufficient concentration to detect in postmortem samples. Codeine is often present in heroin preparations as an impurity and is not a metabolite of heroin. Studies report that a ratio of morphine to codeine greater than one indicates heroin use. We hypothesize that the ratio of morphine to codeine in our decedents abusing drugs intravenously will be no different in individuals with 6-AM present than in individuals where no 6-AM is detected, and we report our study of this hypothesis. All accidental deaths investigated by the Jefferson County Coroner/Medical Examiner Office from 2010 to 2013 with morphine detected in blood samples collected at autopsy were reviewed. Five deaths where trauma caused or contributed to death were excluded from the review. The presence or absence of 6-AM and the concentrations of morphine and codeine were recorded for each case. The ratio of morphine to codeine was calculated for all decedents. Any individual in whom no morphine or codeine was detected in a postmortem sample was excluded from further study. Absence or presence of drug paraphernalia or evidence of intravascular (IV) drug use was documented in each case to identify IV drug users. The proportion of the IV drug users with and without 6-AM present in a postmortem sample was compared to the M/C ratio for the individuals. Of the 230 deaths included in the analysis, 103 IV drug users with quantifiable morphine and codeine in a postmortem sample were identified allowing for calculation of an M/C ratio. In these IV drug users, the M/C ratio was greater than 1 in 98 % of decedents. When controlling for the absence or presence of 6-AM there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of IV drug users when compared to non IV drug users with an M/C ratio of greater than 1 (p = 1.000). The M/C ratio in IV drug users, if greater than 1, is seen in deaths due to heroin toxicity where 6-AM is detected in a postmortem sample. This study provides evidence that a M/C ratio greater than one in an IV drug user is evidence of a death due to heroin toxicity even if 6-AM is not detected in the blood. Using the M/C ratio, in addition to scene and autopsy findings, provides sufficient evidence to show heroin is the source of the morphine and codeine. Listing heroin as a cause or contributing factor in deaths with evidence of IV drug abuse and where the M/C ratio exceeds 1 will improve identification of heroin fatalities, which will allow better allocation of resources for public health initiatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 23%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,265,849
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#63
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,539
of 302,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.