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 *

85 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19747786)

  • 41. Central criminal DNA database created in Germany.
    Peerenboom E
    Nat Biotechnol; 1998 Jun; 16(6):510-1. PubMed ID: 9624672
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Statistical models for protein validation using tandem mass spectral data and protein amino acid sequence databases.
    Sadygov RG; Liu H; Yates JR
    Anal Chem; 2004 Mar; 76(6):1664-71. PubMed ID: 15018565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Legal perceptions of forensic DNA profiling part I: a review of the legal literature.
    Walsh SJ
    Forensic Sci Int; 2005 Dec; 155(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 16216711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Likelihood ratios for evaluating DNA evidence when the suspect is found through a database search.
    Stockmarr A
    Biometrics; 1999 Sep; 55(3):671-7. PubMed ID: 11314992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Statistical issues in DNA evidence.
    Brookfield JF
    Electrophoresis; 1995 Sep; 16(9):1665-9. PubMed ID: 8582353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Sampling in forensic comparison problems.
    Curran JM; Triggs CM; Buckleton J
    Sci Justice; 1998; 38(2):101-7. PubMed ID: 9624819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Extraction of the relevant population from a forensic database.
    de Zwart D; van der Weerd J
    Sci Justice; 2021 Jul; 61(4):419-425. PubMed ID: 34172131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The evidential strength of a combination of corresponding class features in tire examination.
    Sjerps M; Alberink I; Visser R; Stoel RD
    Forensic Sci Int; 2022 Aug; 337():111351. PubMed ID: 35709588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Generating a Corpus of Mobile Forensic Images for Masquerading user Experimentation.
    Guido M; Brooks M; Grover J; Katz E; Ondricek J; Rogers M; Sharpe L
    J Forensic Sci; 2016 Nov; 61(6):1467-1472. PubMed ID: 27545967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Critical review of the use and scientific basis of forensic gait analysis.
    van Mastrigt NM; Celie K; Mieremet AL; Ruifrok ACC; Geradts Z
    Forensic Sci Res; 2018; 3(3):183-193. PubMed ID: 30483668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Using online databases for developing SNP markers of forensic interest.
    Phillips C
    Methods Mol Biol; 2005; 297():83-106. PubMed ID: 15570102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. Issues with suicide databases in forensic research.
    Byard RW
    Forensic Sci Med Pathol; 2017 Dec; 13(4):401-402. PubMed ID: 28276000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Discussion of "The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence".
    Bickel PJ
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 1997 May; 94(11):5497. PubMed ID: 9159097
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Finding the way forward for forensic science in the US-A commentary on the PCAST report.
    Evett IW; Berger CEH; Buckleton JS; Champod C; Jackson G
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Sep; 278():16-23. PubMed ID: 28688344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Recent microtechniques in forensic science.
    Kirk PL
    Pure Appl Chem; 1965; 10(2):125-32. PubMed ID: 5856964
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Comment on: "Neyman's Bias in Online Voluntary Databases!".
    Felsenreich DM; Gachabayov M; Rojas A; Bendl R; Palmer S; Bergamaschi R
    Ann Surg; 2021 Dec; 274(6):e701-e702. PubMed ID: 33006453
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Regarding Champod, editorial: "Research focused mainly on bias will paralyse forensic science".
    Risinger DM; Thompson WC; Jamieson A; Koppl R; Kornfield I; Krane D; Mnookin JL; Rosenthal R; Saks MJ; Zabell SL
    Sci Justice; 2014 Dec; 54(6):508-9. PubMed ID: 25498942
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Response to the Comment on "Neyman's Bias in Online Voluntary Databases!".
    Roodbeen SX; de Lacy FB; Hompes R
    Ann Surg; 2021 Dec; 274(6):e702-e703. PubMed ID: 32324688
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.