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 *

197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25261845)

  • 1. Interpreting forensic DNA profiling evidence without specifying the number of contributors.
    Taylor D; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Nov; 13():269-80. PubMed ID: 25261845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Performance of a method for weighting a range in the number of contributors in probabilistic genotyping.
    McGovern C; Cheng K; Kelly H; Ciecko A; Taylor D; Buckleton JS; Bright JA
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Sep; 48():102352. PubMed ID: 32707473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. CEESIt: A computational tool for the interpretation of STR mixtures.
    Swaminathan H; Garg A; Grgicak CM; Medard M; Lun DS
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 May; 22():149-160. PubMed ID: 26946255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Considering relatives when assessing the evidential strength of mixed DNA profiles.
    Taylor D; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Nov; 13():259-63. PubMed ID: 25259769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Development and validation of open-source software for DNA mixture interpretation based on a quantitative continuous model.
    Manabe S; Morimoto C; Hamano Y; Fujimoto S; Tamaki K
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(11):e0188183. PubMed ID: 29149210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A MCMC method for resolving two person mixtures.
    Curran JM
    Sci Justice; 2008 Dec; 48(4):168-77. PubMed ID: 19192678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interpreting a major component from a mixed DNA profile with an unknown number of minor contributors.
    Bille T; Weitz S; Buckleton JS; Bright JA
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 May; 40():150-159. PubMed ID: 30844683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. TrueAllele(®) Genotype Identification on DNA Mixtures Containing up to Five Unknown Contributors.
    Perlin MW; Hornyak JM; Sugimoto G; Miller KW
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 Jul; 60(4):857-68. PubMed ID: 26189920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Validation of a top-down DNA profile analysis for database searching using a fully continuous probabilistic genotyping model.
    Taylor D; Bright JA; Scandrett L; Abarno D; Lee SI; Wivell R; Kelly H; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 May; 52():102479. PubMed ID: 33588348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accurate assessment of the weight of evidence for DNA mixtures by integrating the likelihood ratio.
    Slooten K
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Mar; 27():1-16. PubMed ID: 27914277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Inference about the number of contributors to a DNA mixture: Comparative analyses of a Bayesian network approach and the maximum allele count method.
    Biedermann A; Bozza S; Konis K; Taroni F
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Dec; 6(6):689-96. PubMed ID: 22534257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An assessment of the information content of likelihood ratios derived from complex mixtures.
    Marsden CD; Rudin N; Inman K; Lohmueller KE
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 May; 22():64-72. PubMed ID: 26851613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Validation of a DNA mixture statistics tool incorporating allelic drop-out and drop-in.
    Mitchell AA; Tamariz J; O'Connell K; Ducasse N; Budimlija Z; Prinz M; Caragine T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Dec; 6(6):749-61. PubMed ID: 22999739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The predictive value of the maximum likelihood estimator of the number of contributors to a DNA mixture.
    Haned H; Pène L; Sauvage F; Pontier D
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2011 Aug; 5(4):281-4. PubMed ID: 20488773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A collaborative study on the precision of the Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms used for DNA profile interpretation.
    Riman S; Bright JA; Huffman K; Moreno LI; Liu S; Sathya A; Vallone PM
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2024 Sep; 72():103088. PubMed ID: 38908322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The variability in likelihood ratios due to different mechanisms.
    Bright JA; Stevenson KE; Curran JM; Buckleton JS
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2015 Jan; 14():187-90. PubMed ID: 25450791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.