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.
65. On the Bayesian approach to forensic age estimation of living individuals. Sironi E; Vuille J; Morling N; Taroni F Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Dec; 281():e24-e29. PubMed ID: 29162298 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. [Objective evaluation of dysphonia. Possibilities and limitations]. Di Nicola V; Fiorella ML; Luperto P; Staffieri A; Fiorella R Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital; 2001 Feb; 21(1):10-21. PubMed ID: 11434219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. SuperTRI: A new approach based on branch support analyses of multiple independent data sets for assessing reliability of phylogenetic inferences. Ropiquet A; Li B; Hassanin A C R Biol; 2009 Sep; 332(9):832-47. PubMed ID: 19748458 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Forensic science. Journal flinches as article on voice analyzer sparks lawsuit threat. Cho A Science; 2009 Feb; 323(5916):863. PubMed ID: 19213884 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
69. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor. Jones AW Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Jan; 165(2-3):115-28. PubMed ID: 16784827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Using continuous DNA interpretation methods to revisit likelihood ratio behaviour. Taylor D Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Jul; 11():144-53. PubMed ID: 24727432 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Commentary on: Thompson WC, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. J Forensic Sci 2003;48(1):47-54. Brenner CH; Inman K J Forensic Sci; 2004 Jan; 49(1):192-3; author reply 194-5. PubMed ID: 14979377 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
75. Commentary on: Thompson WC, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. J Forensic Sci 2003;48(1):47-54. Cotton RW; Word CJ J Forensic Sci; 2003 Sep; 48(5):1200; author reply 1202. PubMed ID: 14535702 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
76. Reply to Morrison et al. (2016) Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison - A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions. Hicks T; Biedermann A; de Koeijer JA; Taroni F; Champod C; Evett IW Sci Justice; 2017 Sep; 57(5):401-402. PubMed ID: 28889871 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
77. Lead isotope ratios for bullets, forensic evaluation in a Bayesian paradigm. Sjåstad KE; Lucy D; Andersen T Talanta; 2016 Jan; 146():62-70. PubMed ID: 26695235 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Commentary on: Thompson WC, Taroni F, Aitken CGG. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. J Forensic Sci 2003 Jan.;48(1):47-54. Clarke GW J Forensic Sci; 2003 Sep; 48(5):1201; author reply 1202. PubMed ID: 14535703 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
79. What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be? Morrison GS; Enzinger E Sci Justice; 2016 Sep; 56(5):374-379. PubMed ID: 27702454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
80. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]