Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Jul 6, 2023; 11(19): 4477-4497
Published online Jul 6, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i19.4477
Diffusion tensor imaging in the courtroom: Distinction between scientific specificity and legally admissible evidence
Jennifer Christine van Velkinburgh, Mark D Herbst, Stewart M Casper
Jennifer Christine van Velkinburgh, Science Communication, Filipodia Publishing LLC, Santa Fe, NM 87505, United States
Mark D Herbst, Diagnostic Radiology, Independent Diagnostic Radiology Inc, St Petersburg, FL 33711, United States
Stewart M Casper, Personal Injury Law, Casper & DeToledo LLC, Stamford, CT 06905, United States
Author contributions: van Velkinburgh JC and Casper SM conceptualized the review; van Velkinburgh JC performed the data collection, formal analysis and interpretation in science/medicine communication and publication topical matters; Herbst MD and Casper SM performed the data collection, formal analysis and interpretation in neuroimaging topical matters; Herbst MD generated the figure; Casper SM performed the data collection, formal analysis and interpretation in legal topical matters, drafted the first version of the manuscript, and generated the Table; All authors reviewed and edited each version of the manuscript for important intellectual content and provided approval of the final version.
Conflict-of-interest statement: Dr. van Velkinburgh has been engaged as an expert witness in litigated matters concerning authorship and publication of papers in scientific and science related journals including testimony concerning her extended research on Wintermark M, Sanelli PC, Anzai Y, Tsiouris AJ, Whitlow CT; American College of Radiology Head Injury Institute. Imaging evidence and recommendations for traumatic brain injury: advanced neuro- and neurovascular imaging techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015 Feb;36(2):E1-E11. Dr. Herbst has served as an expert witness in litigated matters interpreting diffusion tensor imaging of the brain in both clinical and forensic settings. Mr. Casper is a trial attorney who represents personal injury plaintiffs alleging various classifications of traumatic brain injury. Some of his clients have undergone advanced neuroimaging ordered by clinicians.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Jennifer Christine van Velkinburgh, PhD, Academic Editor, President, Science Editor, Science Communication, Filipodia Publishing LLC, 1000 Cordova Pl 22, Santa Fe, NM 87505, United States. jcv@filipodia.com
Received: April 10, 2023
Peer-review started: April 10, 2023
First decision: May 15, 2023
Revised: May 26, 2023
Accepted: June 13, 2023
Article in press: June 13, 2023
Published online: July 6, 2023
Processing time: 81 Days and 12 Hours
Core Tip

Core Tip: Transcendence of an academic publication over disciplinary boundaries faces the challenge of application by a group that inherently lacks in-depth knowledge on the scientific method, the practice of evidence-based medicine, or the peer-reviewed publication process. A modern-day example of this is the ongoing conflict between diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) publications and legal standards for admissibility of evidence in personal injury litigation cases in the United States. We have amalgamated the peer-reviewed research on DTI in mild traumatic brain injury with the court’s rationale underlying decisions to admit or exclude evidence of DTI abnormalities to support claims of brain injury.