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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19432737)

  • 1. Testing for potential contextual bias effects during the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprint comparisons.
    Langenburg G; Champod C; Wertheim P
    J Forensic Sci; 2009 May; 54(3):571-82. PubMed ID: 19432737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications.
    Dror IE; Charlton D; Péron AE
    Forensic Sci Int; 2006 Jan; 156(1):74-8. PubMed ID: 16325362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The potential (negative) influence of observational biases at the analysis stage of fingermark individualisation.
    Schiffer B; Champod C
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Apr; 167(2-3):116-20. PubMed ID: 16876354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does contextual information bias bitemark comparisons?
    Osborne NK; Woods S; Kieser J; Zajac R
    Sci Justice; 2014 Jul; 54(4):267-73. PubMed ID: 25002044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation.
    Dror IE; Hampikian G
    Sci Justice; 2011 Dec; 51(4):204-8. PubMed ID: 22137054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The impact of human-technology cooperation and distributed cognition in forensic science: biasing effects of AFIS contextual information on human experts.
    Dror IE; Wertheim K; Fraser-Mackenzie P; Walajtys J
    J Forensic Sci; 2012 Mar; 57(2):343-52. PubMed ID: 22212067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts.
    Dror I; Rosenthal R
    J Forensic Sci; 2008 Jul; 53(4):900-3. PubMed ID: 18489557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias.
    Nakhaeizadeh S; Dror IE; Morgan RM
    Sci Justice; 2014 May; 54(3):208-14. PubMed ID: 24796950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A biased opinion: Demonstration of cognitive bias on a fingerprint matching task through knowledge of DNA test results.
    Stevenage SV; Bennett A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Jul; 276():93-106. PubMed ID: 28514701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Expertise in fingerprint identification.
    Thompson MB; Tangen JM; McCarthy DJ
    J Forensic Sci; 2013 Nov; 58(6):1519-30. PubMed ID: 23786258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Source-monitoring training: toward reducing rater expectancy effects in behavioral measurement.
    Martell RF; Evans DP
    J Appl Psychol; 2005 Sep; 90(5):956-63. PubMed ID: 16162067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision-making?
    Hall LJ; Player E
    Forensic Sci Int; 2008 Oct; 181(1-3):36-9. PubMed ID: 18849126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Discrepancies in expert decision-making in forensic fingerprint examination.
    Mustonen V; Hakkarainen K; Tuunainen J; Pohjola P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2015 Sep; 254():215-26. PubMed ID: 26254629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fingerprint verification prediction model in hand dermatitis.
    Lee CK; Chang CC; Johor A; Othman P; Baba R
    Int J Dermatol; 2015 Jul; 54(7):765-70. PubMed ID: 25427962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Why do latent fingerprint examiners differ in their conclusions?
    Hicklin RA; Ulery BT; Ausdemore M; Buscaglia J
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Nov; 316():110542. PubMed ID: 33147525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments.
    Fraser-Mackenzie PA; Dror IE; Wertheim K
    Sci Justice; 2013 Jun; 53(2):144-53. PubMed ID: 23601721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fillers can help control for contextual bias in forensic comparison tasks.
    Quigley-McBride A; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Aug; 42(4):295-305. PubMed ID: 30035551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Does suggestive information cause a confirmation bias in bullet comparisons?
    Kerstholt J; Eikelboom A; Dijkman T; Stoel R; Hermsen R; van Leuven B
    Forensic Sci Int; 2010 May; 198(1-3):138-42. PubMed ID: 20207514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Context effects and observer bias--implications for forensic odontology.
    Page M; Taylor J; Blenkin M
    J Forensic Sci; 2012 Jan; 57(1):108-12. PubMed ID: 21854387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Fact or friction: Examination of the transparency, reliability and sufficiency of the ACE-V method of fingerprint analysis.
    Stevenage SV; Pitfield C
    Forensic Sci Int; 2016 Oct; 267():145-156. PubMed ID: 27611955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.