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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25002042)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions: Part I: evaluation of DNA profiling comparisons given (sub-) source 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; 2018 Sep; 36():189-202. PubMed ID: 30041098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Evaluating forensic biology results given source level propositions.
    Taylor D; Abarno D; Hicks T; Champod C
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 Mar; 21():54-67. PubMed ID: 26720813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparing multiple POI to DNA mixtures.
    Hicks T; Kerr Z; Pugh S; Bright JA; Curran J; Taylor D; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 May; 52():102481. PubMed ID: 33607394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions.
    Taylor D; Biedermann A; Hicks T; Champod C
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Mar; 33():136-146. PubMed ID: 29275089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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; 2015 Dec; 55(6):520-5. PubMed ID: 26654089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Stabbing simulations and DNA transfer.
    Samie L; Hicks T; Castella V; Taroni F
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 May; 22():73-80. PubMed ID: 26875110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Structuring cases into propositions, assumptions, and undisputed case information.
    Taylor D; Kokshoorn B; Hicks T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jan; 44():102199. PubMed ID: 31756630
    [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. The 'factor of two' issue in mixed DNA profiles.
    Taylor D; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    J Theor Biol; 2014 Dec; 363():300-6. PubMed ID: 25158162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. PENDULUM--a guideline-based approach to the interpretation of STR mixtures.
    Bill M; Gill P; Curran J; Clayton T; Pinchin R; Healy M; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int; 2005 Mar; 148(2-3):181-9. PubMed ID: 15639613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Interpreting DNA mixtures in structured populations.
    Curran JM; Triggs CM; Buckleton J; Weir BS
    J Forensic Sci; 1999 Sep; 44(5):987-95. PubMed ID: 10486951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An Investigation into Compound Likelihood Ratios for Forensic DNA Mixtures.
    Wivell R; Kelly H; Kokoszka J; Daniels J; Dickson L; Buckleton J; Bright JA
    Genes (Basel); 2023 Mar; 14(3):. PubMed ID: 36980986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The use of Bayesian Networks and simulation methods to identify the variables impacting the value of evidence assessed under activity level propositions in stabbing cases.
    Samie L; Champod C; Taylor D; Taroni F
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Sep; 48():102334. PubMed ID: 32563838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Joint Bayesian analysis of forensic mixtures.
    Pascali VL; Merigioli S
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Dec; 6(6):735-48. PubMed ID: 22948016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Addressing uncertain assumptions in DNA evidence evaluation.
    Kruijver M; Kelly H; Taylor D; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2023 Sep; 66():102913. PubMed ID: 37453205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.