These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10486951)

  • 21. Estimating the number of contributors to forensic DNA mixtures: does maximum likelihood perform better than maximum allele count?
    Haned H; Pène L; Lobry JR; Dufour AB; Pontier D
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Jan; 56(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 20840286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. An assessment of the information content of likelihood ratios derived from complex mixtures.
    Marsden CD; Rudin N; Inman K; Lohmueller KE
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 May; 22():64-72. PubMed ID: 26851613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Inference about the number of contributors to a DNA mixture: Comparative analyses of a Bayesian network approach and the maximum allele count method.
    Biedermann A; Bozza S; Konis K; Taroni F
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Dec; 6(6):689-96. PubMed ID: 22534257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Distinguishing between donors and their relatives in complex DNA mixtures with binary models.
    Slooten K
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 Mar; 21():95-109. PubMed ID: 26745184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The predictive value of the maximum likelihood estimator of the number of contributors to a DNA mixture.
    Haned H; Pène L; Sauvage F; Pontier D
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2011 Aug; 5(4):281-4. PubMed ID: 20488773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Calculating likelihood ratios for a mixed DNA profile when a contribution from a genetic relative of a suspect is proposed.
    Puch-Solis R; Pope S; Evett I
    Sci Justice; 2010 Dec; 50(4):205-9. PubMed ID: 21075300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluating forensic DNA profiles using peak heights, allowing for multiple donors, allelic dropout and stutters.
    Puch-Solis R; Rodgers L; Mazumder A; Pope S; Evett I; Curran J; Balding D
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2013 Sep; 7(5):555-63. PubMed ID: 23948327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Matching and partially-matching DNA profiles.
    Weir BS
    J Forensic Sci; 2004 Sep; 49(5):1009-14. PubMed ID: 15461102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Assessment of mock cases involving complex low template DNA mixtures: A descriptive study.
    Benschop CC; Haned H; de Blaeij TJ; Meulenbroek AJ; Sijen T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Dec; 6(6):697-707. PubMed ID: 22613779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Estimating the probability of allelic drop-out of STR alleles in forensic genetics.
    Tvedebrink T; Eriksen PS; Mogensen HS; Morling N
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2009 Sep; 3(4):222-6. PubMed ID: 19647706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Calculating the weight of evidence in low-template forensic DNA casework.
    Lohmueller KE; Rudin N
    J Forensic Sci; 2013 Jan; 58 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S243-9. PubMed ID: 23082963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Development and validation of open-source software for DNA mixture interpretation based on a quantitative continuous model.
    Manabe S; Morimoto C; Hamano Y; Fujimoto S; Tamaki K
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(11):e0188183. PubMed ID: 29149210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Accurate assessment of the weight of evidence for DNA mixtures by integrating the likelihood ratio.
    Slooten K
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Mar; 27():1-16. PubMed ID: 27914277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Mixture interpretation: Experimental and simulated reevaluation of qualitative analysis.
    Manabe S; Mori Y; Kawai C; Ozeki M; Tamaki K
    Leg Med (Tokyo); 2013 Mar; 15(2):66-71. PubMed ID: 23089142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Tri-allelic SNP markers enable analysis of mixed and degraded DNA samples.
    Westen AA; Matai AS; Laros JF; Meiland HC; Jasper M; de Leeuw WJ; de Knijff P; Sijen T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2009 Sep; 3(4):233-41. PubMed ID: 19647708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. PENDULUM--a guideline-based approach to the interpretation of STR mixtures.
    Bill M; Gill P; Curran J; Clayton T; Pinchin R; Healy M; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int; 2005 Mar; 148(2-3):181-9. PubMed ID: 15639613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Performance of a method for weighting a range in the number of contributors in probabilistic genotyping.
    McGovern C; Cheng K; Kelly H; Ciecko A; Taylor D; Buckleton JS; Bright JA
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Sep; 48():102352. PubMed ID: 32707473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Validation of an STR peak area model.
    Cowell RG
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2009 Jun; 3(3):193-9. PubMed ID: 19414168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation.
    Perlin MW; Legler MM; Spencer CE; Smith JL; Allan WP; Belrose JL; Duceman BW
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Nov; 56(6):1430-47. PubMed ID: 21827458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Validation of STR typing by capillary electrophoresis.
    Moretti TR; Baumstark AL; Defenbaugh DA; Keys KM; Brown AL; Budowle B
    J Forensic Sci; 2001 May; 46(3):661-76. PubMed ID: 11373005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.