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 *

159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19948328)

  • 21. The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles.
    Taylor D; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2013 Sep; 7(5):516-28. PubMed ID: 23948322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Internal validation of STRmix™ for the interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles.
    Moretti TR; Just RS; Kehl SC; Willis LE; Buckleton JS; Bright JA; Taylor DA; Onorato AJ
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Jul; 29():126-144. PubMed ID: 28504203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Assessment of the stochastic threshold, back- and forward stutter filters and low template techniques for NGM.
    Westen AA; Grol LJ; Harteveld J; Matai AS; de Knijff P; Sijen T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Dec; 6(6):708-15. PubMed ID: 22633964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework.
    Budowle B; Onorato AJ; Callaghan TF; Della Manna A; Gross AM; Guerrieri RA; Luttman JC; McClure DL
    J Forensic Sci; 2009 Jul; 54(4):810-21. PubMed ID: 19368620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Database extraction strategies for low-template evidence.
    Bleka Ø; Dørum G; Haned H; Gill P
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Mar; 9():134-41. PubMed ID: 24528591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Maximizing allele detection: Effects of analytical threshold and DNA levels on rates of allele and locus drop-out.
    Rakay CA; Bregu J; Grgicak CM
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Dec; 6(6):723-8. PubMed ID: 22796031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy-number.
    Gill P; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2010 Jul; 4(4):221-7. PubMed ID: 20457049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A large-scale validation of NOCIt's a posteriori probability of the number of contributors and its integration into forensic interpretation pipelines.
    Grgicak CM; Karkar S; Yearwood-Garcia X; Alfonse LE; Duffy KR; Lun DS
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jul; 47():102296. PubMed ID: 32339916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Inferring the Number of Contributors to Complex DNA Mixtures Using Three Methods: Exploring the Limits of Low-Template DNA Interpretation.
    Alfonse LE; Tejada G; Swaminathan H; Lun DS; Grgicak CM
    J Forensic Sci; 2017 Mar; 62(2):308-316. PubMed ID: 27907229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The effect of varying the number of contributors in the prosecution and alternate propositions.
    Buckleton JS; Bright JA; Cheng K; Kelly H; Taylor DA
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Jan; 38():225-231. PubMed ID: 30466054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Combining allele frequency uncertainty and population substructure corrections in forensic DNA calculations.
    Cowell R
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 Jul; 23():210-216. PubMed ID: 27231804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of the performance of different models for the interpretation of low level mixed DNA profiles.
    Bille TW; Weitz SM; Coble MD; Buckleton J; Bright JA
    Electrophoresis; 2014 Nov; 35(21-22):3125-33. PubMed ID: 25168355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Testing whether stutter and low-level DNA peaks are additive.
    Buckleton JS; Lohmueller KE; Inman K; Cheng K; Curran JM; Pugh SN; Bright JA; Taylor DA
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Nov; 43():102166. PubMed ID: 31586815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Evaluation of low-template DNA profiles using peak heights.
    Steele CD; Greenhalgh M; Balding DJ
    Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol; 2016 Oct; 15(5):431-445. PubMed ID: 27416618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Modeling one complete versus triplicate analyses in low template DNA typing.
    Ge J; Budowle B
    Int J Legal Med; 2014 Mar; 128(2):259-67. PubMed ID: 24096959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The a posteriori probability of the number of contributors when conditioned on an assumed contributor.
    Grgicak CM; Duffy KR; Lun DS
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 Sep; 54():102563. PubMed ID: 34284325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Interpretation of complex forensic DNA mixtures.
    Ladd C; Lee HC; Yang N; Bieber FR
    Croat Med J; 2001 Jun; 42(3):244-6. PubMed ID: 11387631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Lab Retriever: a software tool for calculating likelihood ratios incorporating a probability of drop-out for forensic DNA profiles.
    Inman K; Rudin N; Cheng K; Robinson C; Kirschner A; Inman-Semerau L; Lohmueller KE
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2015 Sep; 16():298. PubMed ID: 26384762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. When evaluating DNA evidence within a likelihood ratio framework, should the propositions be exhaustive?
    Buckleton J; Taylor D; Bright JA; Hicks T; Curran J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 Jan; 50():102406. PubMed ID: 33142191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.