Evidence mapPaperPMID 41929779Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

The gut is guilty! Will legalomics transform forensic and legal psychology?

Pragya Mishra, Susan L Prescott, Alan C Logan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pragya MishraDepartment of Law, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Susan L PrescottSchool of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Alan C LoganCenter for Justice and Mental Wellbeing, Nova Institute for Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple lines of converging research are supporting the idea that gut microbes play an outsized role in human cognition and behavior. Here in this perspective article, we argue that emergent gut-brain-microbiota research, and associated advances in multi-omics technologies, are destined to be of high-level relevance to forensic and legal psychology. After summarizing neural, immune, endocrine, and metabolic channels by which gut ecosystems can modulate behavior-relevant brain states, and discussing causal inferences from microbiota-transfer and adjacent human evidence, we present auto-brewery syndrome as a bounded legal precedent for microbiome-mediated impairment. The available evidence allows for a visualized future in which legalomics-the disciplined use of microbiome and omics evidence in prevention, treatment, competency, mitigation, risk assessments, reintegration care, correctional health, and professional wellness-is in the prevue of forensic and legal psychology. Framed by neurorights, we offer a series of ideas for future directions, with possible ways to strengthen research within ethical frameworks. Using auto-brewery syndrome as an example, we argue that the legalome offers forensic and legal psychology a way to calibrate, rather than replace, biopsychosocial judgement. Microbial signatures and legalomics-reliably obtained and narrowly construed-might one day help us judge more justly.

Indexed as

auto-brewery syndromeforensic psychologygut–brain axislegalomicsMendelian randomizationmicrobiomeneurorightspsychobiotics

Identifiers

PMID41929779
PMCPMC13038528

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.