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 *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28889871)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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.
    Morrison GS; Enzinger E; Zhang C
    Sci Justice; 2016 Dec; 56(6):492-497. PubMed ID: 27914557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2014 May; 54(3):245-56. PubMed ID: 24796954
    [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. A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case.
    Enzinger E; Morrison GS; Ochoa F
    Sci Justice; 2016 Jan; 56(1):42-57. PubMed ID: 26746825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2009 Dec; 49(4):298-308. PubMed ID: 20120610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Use of relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models to calculate a likelihood ratio for a Chinese forensic voice comparison case involving two sisters.
    Zhang C; Morrison GS; Enzinger E
    Forensic Sci Int; 2016 Oct; 267():115-124. PubMed ID: 27592142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An empirical estimate of the precision of likelihood ratios from a forensic-voice-comparison system.
    Morrison GS; Zhang C; Rose P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2011 May; 208(1-3):59-65. PubMed ID: 21131149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Empirical test of the performance of an acoustic-phonetic approach to forensic voice comparison under conditions similar to those of a real case.
    Enzinger E; Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Aug; 277():30-40. PubMed ID: 28575731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2011 Sep; 51(3):91-8. PubMed ID: 21889105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Machine learning algorithms in forensic science: A response to Morrison et al. (2022).
    Swofford H; Champod C
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2022; 5():100277. PubMed ID: 35966609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. On the use of the likelihood ratio for forensic evaluation: response to Fenton et al.
    Biedermann A; Hicks T; Taroni F; Champod C; Aitken C
    Sci Justice; 2014 Jul; 54(4):316-8. PubMed ID: 25002051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Response to "on the use of the likelihood ratio for forensic evaluation: response to Fenton et al.".
    Fenton N; Lagnado D; Hsu A; Berger D; Neil M
    Sci Justice; 2014 Jul; 54(4):319-20. PubMed ID: 25002052
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Corrigendum to 'Questions, propositions and assessing different levels of evidence: Forensic voice comparison in practice'.
    Hughes V; Rhodes R
    Sci Justice; 2018 Sep; 58(5):384. PubMed ID: 30193664
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: Benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings.
    Marquis R; Biedermann A; Cadola L; Champod C; Gueissaz L; Massonnet G; Mazzella WD; Taroni F; Hicks T
    Sci Justice; 2016 Sep; 56(5):364-370. PubMed ID: 27702452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions.
    Evett IW; Jackson G; Lambert JA
    Sci Justice; 2000; 40(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 10795422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Issues and opportunities: the application of the numerical likelihood ratio framework to forensic speaker comparison.
    Gold E; Hughes V
    Sci Justice; 2014 Jul; 54(4):292-9. PubMed ID: 25002047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.