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)

  • 21. DNA mixture genotyping by probabilistic computer interpretation of binomially-sampled laser captured cell populations: combining quantitative data for greater identification information.
    Ballantyne J; Hanson EK; Perlin MW
    Sci Justice; 2013 Jun; 53(2):103-14. PubMed ID: 23601717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Application of random match probability calculations to mixed STR profiles.
    Bille T; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    J Forensic Sci; 2013 Mar; 58(2):474-85. PubMed ID: 23425220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Validating TrueAllele
    Bauer DW; Butt N; Hornyak JM; Perlin MW
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Mar; 65(2):380-398. PubMed ID: 31580496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A top-down approach to DNA mixtures.
    Slooten K
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 May; 46():102250. PubMed ID: 32169810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting.
    Swaminathan H; Qureshi MO; Grgicak CM; Duffy K; Lun DS
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207599. PubMed ID: 30458020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Probabilistic approaches to interpreting two-person DNA mixtures from post-coital specimens.
    Rodriguez JJRB; Bright JA; Salvador JM; Laude RP; De Ungria MCA
    Forensic Sci Int; 2019 Jul; 300():157-163. PubMed ID: 31112838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Estimating the number of contributors to forensic DNA mixtures: does maximum likelihood perform better than maximum allele count?
    Haned H; Pène L; Lobry JR; Dufour AB; Pontier D
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Jan; 56(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 20840286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Least-square deconvolution: a framework for interpreting short tandem repeat mixtures.
    Wang T; Xue N; Birdwell JD
    J Forensic Sci; 2006 Nov; 51(6):1284-97. PubMed ID: 17199614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A tale of two PG systems: A comparison of the two most widely used continuous probabilistic genotyping systems in the United States.
    Greenspoon SA; Schiermeier-Wood L; Jenkins BC
    J Forensic Sci; 2024 Sep; 69(5):1840-1860. PubMed ID: 38899548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Identifying contributors of DNA mixtures by means of quantitative information of STR typing.
    Tvedebrink T; Eriksen PS; Mogensen HS; Morling N
    J Comput Biol; 2012 Jul; 19(7):887-902. PubMed ID: 21210742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases.
    Bright JA; Taylor D; Curran J; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Mar; 9():102-10. PubMed ID: 24528588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Determining the number of contributors to DNA mixtures in the low-template regime: Exploring the impacts of sampling and detection effects.
    Norsworthy S; Lun DS; Grgicak CM
    Leg Med (Tokyo); 2018 May; 32():1-8. PubMed ID: 29453054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using empirical models and a method to measure their robustness.
    Gill P; Curran J; Neumann C; Kirkham A; Clayton T; Whitaker J; Lambert J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2008 Mar; 2(2):91-103. PubMed ID: 19083804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Interpreting Y chromosome STR haplotype mixture.
    Ge J; Budowle B; Chakraborty R
    Leg Med (Tokyo); 2010 May; 12(3):137-43. PubMed ID: 20346725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The efficacy of DNA mixture to mixture matching.
    Bright JA; Taylor D; Kerr Z; Buckleton J; Kruijver M
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Jul; 41():64-71. PubMed ID: 30986620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Forensic interpretation of Y-chromosomal DNA mixtures.
    Wolf A; Caliebe A; Junge O; Krawczak M
    Forensic Sci Int; 2005 Sep; 152(2-3):209-13. PubMed ID: 15978347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. STRmix
    Noël S; Noël J; Granger D; Lefebvre JF; Séguin D
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Jul; 41():24-31. PubMed ID: 30947115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Exact computation of the distribution of likelihood ratios with forensic applications.
    Dørum G; Bleka Ø; Gill P; Haned H; Snipen L; Sæbø S; Egeland T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Mar; 9():93-101. PubMed ID: 24528587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.