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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10795422)

  • 1. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions.
    Evett IW; Jackson G; Lambert JA
    Sci Justice; 2000; 40(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 10795422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Establishing the most appropriate databases for addressing source level propositions.
    Champod C; Evett IW; Jackson G
    Sci Justice; 2004; 44(3):153-64. PubMed ID: 15270454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions. Part II: Evaluation of biological traces considering activity level propositions.
    Gill P; Hicks T; Butler JM; Connolly E; Gusmão L; Kokshoorn B; Morling N; van Oorschot RAH; Parson W; Prinz M; Schneider PM; Sijen T; Taylor D
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jan; 44():102186. PubMed ID: 31677444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The interpretation of elemental composition measurements from forensic glass evidence III.
    Campbell GP; Curran JM
    Sci Justice; 2009 Mar; 49(1):2-7. PubMed ID: 19418921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A Logical Framework for Forensic DNA Interpretation.
    Hicks T; Buckleton J; Castella V; Evett I; Jackson G
    Genes (Basel); 2022 May; 13(6):. PubMed ID: 35741719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment.
    Gittelson S; Kalafut T; Myers S; Taylor D; Hicks T; Taroni F; Evett IW; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    J Forensic Sci; 2016 Jan; 61(1):186-95. PubMed ID: 26248867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A model for case assessment and interpretation.
    Cook R; Evett IW; Jackson G; Jones PJ; Lambert JA
    Sci Justice; 1998; 38(3):151-6. PubMed ID: 9800430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The relevance of the evolution of experimental studies for the interpretation and evaluation of some trace physical evidence.
    Morgan RM; Cohen J; McGookin I; Murly-Gotto J; O'Connor R; Muress S; Freudiger-Bonzon J; Bull PA
    Sci Justice; 2009 Dec; 49(4):277-85. PubMed ID: 20120607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Probabilistic reasoning in the law. Part 1: Assessment of probabilities and explanation of the value of DNA evidence.
    Taroni F; Aitken CG
    Sci Justice; 1998; 38(3):165-77. PubMed ID: 9800432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The likelihood approach to compare populations: a study on DNA evidence and pitfalls of intuitions.
    Taroni F; Aitken CG
    Sci Justice; 1999; 39(4):213-22. PubMed ID: 10795411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions: A review.
    Taylor D; Kokshoorn B; Biedermann A
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Sep; 36():34-49. PubMed ID: 29929059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Learning about Bayesian networks for forensic interpretation: an example based on the 'the problem of multiple propositions'.
    Biedermann A; Voisard R; Taroni F
    Sci Justice; 2012 Sep; 52(3):191-8. PubMed ID: 22841144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks.
    Evett IW; Gill PD; Jackson G; Whitaker J; Champod C
    J Forensic Sci; 2002 May; 47(3):520-30. PubMed ID: 12051330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Helping formulate propositions in forensic DNA analysis.
    Buckleton J; Bright JA; Taylor D; Evett I; Hicks T; Jackson G; Curran JM
    Sci Justice; 2014 Jul; 54(4):258-61. PubMed ID: 25002042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Interpreting DNA mixtures.
    Weir BS; Triggs CM; Starling L; Stowell LI; Walsh KA; Buckleton J
    J Forensic Sci; 1997 Mar; 42(2):213-22. PubMed ID: 9068179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Simulating forensic casework scenarios in experimental studies: The generation of footwear marks in blood.
    McElhone RL; Meakin GE; French JC; Alexander T; Morgan RM
    Forensic Sci Int; 2016 Jul; 264():34-40. PubMed ID: 27017082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Questions, propositions and assessing different levels of evidence: Forensic voice comparison in practice.
    Hughes V; Rhodes R
    Sci Justice; 2018 Jul; 58(4):250-257. PubMed ID: 29895456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reporting of highly individual genetic typing results: a practical approach.
    Stoney DA
    J Forensic Sci; 1992 Mar; 37(2):373-86. PubMed ID: 1500888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Databases, quality control and interpretation of DNA profiling in the Home office Forensic Science Service.
    Gill P; Evett IW; Woodroffe S; Lygo JE; Millican E; Webster M
    Electrophoresis; 1991; 12(2-3):204-9. PubMed ID: 2040267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [A consideration of the relation between psychiatric knowledge and natural science].
    Hori A
    Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi; 2002; 104(7):595-603. PubMed ID: 12422406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.