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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27181589)

  • 1. A guideline for the validation of likelihood ratio methods used for forensic evidence evaluation.
    Meuwly D; Ramos D; Haraksim R
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Jul; 276():142-153. PubMed ID: 27181589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Likelihood ratio data to report the validation of a forensic fingerprint evaluation method.
    Ramos D; Haraksim R; Meuwly D
    Data Brief; 2017 Feb; 10():75-92. PubMed ID: 27981197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Performance Study of a Score-based Likelihood Ratio System for Forensic Fingermark Comparison.
    Leegwater AJ; Meuwly D; Sjerps M; Vergeer P; Alberink I
    J Forensic Sci; 2017 May; 62(3):626-640. PubMed ID: 28168685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Measuring coherence of computer-assisted likelihood ratio methods.
    Haraksim R; Ramos D; Meuwly D; Berger CE
    Forensic Sci Int; 2015 Apr; 249():123-32. PubMed ID: 25698513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Implementation and assessment of a likelihood ratio approach for the evaluation of LA-ICP-MS evidence in forensic glass analysis.
    van Es A; Wiarda W; Hordijk M; Alberink I; Vergeer P
    Sci Justice; 2017 May; 57(3):181-192. PubMed ID: 28454627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Numerical likelihood ratios outputted by LR systems are often based on extrapolation: When to stop extrapolating?
    Vergeer P; van Es A; de Jongh A; Alberink I; Stoel R
    Sci Justice; 2016 Dec; 56(6):482-491. PubMed ID: 27914556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bayesian interpretation of discrete class characteristics.
    McNevin D
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Nov; 292():125-130. PubMed ID: 30296628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The systematic profiling of false identity documents: method validation and performance evaluation using seizures known to originate from common and different sources.
    Baechler S; Terrasse V; Pujol JP; Fritz T; Ribaux O; Margot P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2013 Oct; 232(1-3):180-90. PubMed ID: 24053879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be? II.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2017 Nov; 57(6):472-476. PubMed ID: 29173462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bayesian networks and the value of the evidence for the forensic two-trace transfer problem.
    Gittelson S; Biedermann A; Bozza S; Taroni F
    J Forensic Sci; 2012 Sep; 57(5):1199-216. PubMed ID: 22458915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Learning about Bayesian networks for forensic interpretation: an example based on the 'the problem of multiple propositions'.
    Biedermann A; Voisard R; Taroni F
    Sci Justice; 2012 Sep; 52(3):191-8. PubMed ID: 22841144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Response paper to "The likelihood of encapsulating all uncertainty": The relevance of additional information for the LR.
    Slooten K; Berger CEH
    Sci Justice; 2017 Nov; 57(6):468-471. PubMed ID: 29173461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Calculation of likelihood ratios for inference of biological sex from human skeletal remains.
    Morrison GS; Weber P; Basu N; Puch-Solis R; Randolph-Quinney PS
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2021; 3():100202. PubMed ID: 34647000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
    Chilcott J; Tappenden P; Rawdin A; Johnson M; Kaltenthaler E; Paisley S; Papaioannou D; Shippam A
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 May; 14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. PubMed ID: 20501062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Decision theoretic properties of forensic identification: underlying logic and argumentative implications.
    Biedermann A; Bozza S; Taroni F
    Forensic Sci Int; 2008 May; 177(2-3):120-32. PubMed ID: 18187279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of forensic findings when alternative explanations have different likelihoods-"Blame-the-brother"-syndrome.
    Nordgaard A; Hedell R; Ansell R
    Sci Justice; 2012 Dec; 52(4):226-36. PubMed ID: 23068773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Measuring calibration of likelihood-ratio systems: A comparison of four metrics, including a new metric devPAV.
    Vergeer P; van Schaik Y; Sjerps M
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Apr; 321():110722. PubMed ID: 33684845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Likelihood ratio and posterior odds in forensic genetics: Two sides of the same coin.
    Caliebe A; Walsh S; Liu F; Kayser M; Krawczak M
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 May; 28():203-210. PubMed ID: 28314239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.