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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31415947)

  • 1. Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability.
    Martire KA; Ballantyne KN; Bali A; Edmond G; Kemp RI; Found B
    Forensic Sci Int; 2019 Sep; 302():109877. PubMed ID: 31415947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Perceptions and estimates of error rates in forensic science: A survey of forensic analysts.
    Murrie DC; Gardner BO; Kelley S; Dror IE
    Forensic Sci Int; 2019 Sep; 302():109887. PubMed ID: 31404811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Beliefs about error rates and human judgment in forensic science.
    Ribeiro G; Tangen JM; McKimmie BM
    Forensic Sci Int; 2019 Apr; 297():138-147. PubMed ID: 30802644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Error and its meaning in forensic science.
    Christensen AM; Crowder CM; Ousley SD; Houck MM
    J Forensic Sci; 2014 Jan; 59(1):123-6. PubMed ID: 24111751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination.
    Crozier WE; Kukucka J; Garrett BL
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Oct; 315():110433. PubMed ID: 32763747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian Jury.
    Holmgren JA; Fordham J
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Jan; 56 Suppl 1():S63-71. PubMed ID: 21155799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Error Rates, Likelihood Ratios, and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence.
    Garrett BL; Crozier WE; Grady R
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Jul; 65(4):1199-1209. PubMed ID: 32320075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Beyond CSI: Calibrating public beliefs about the reliability of forensic science through openness and transparency.
    Chin JM; Ibaviosa CM
    Sci Justice; 2022 May; 62(3):272-283. PubMed ID: 35598921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.
    McCarthy Wilcox A; NicDaeid N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Oct; 291():100-108. PubMed ID: 30216840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Examination of the "CSI Effect" on Perceptions of Scientific and Testimonial Evidence in a Hong Kong Chinese Sample.
    Hui CY; Lo TW
    Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol; 2017 May; 61(7):819-833. PubMed ID: 26486422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents.
    Thompson WC; Newman EJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Aug; 39(4):332-49. PubMed ID: 25984887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mock jurors' use of error rates in DNA database trawls.
    Scurich N; John RS
    Law Hum Behav; 2013 Dec; 37(6):424-31. PubMed ID: 23855323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony.
    Eastwood J; Caldwell J
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 Nov; 60(6):1523-8. PubMed ID: 26234166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Communicating forensic science opinion: An examination of expert reporting practices.
    Bali AS; Edmond G; Ballantyne KN; Kemp RI; Martire KA
    Sci Justice; 2020 May; 60(3):216-224. PubMed ID: 32381238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effect of following best practice reporting recommendations on legal and community evaluations of forensic examiners reports.
    Summersby S; Edmond G; Kemp RI; Ballantyne KN; Martire KA
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jun; 359():112034. PubMed ID: 38704924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Judges and forensic science education: A national survey.
    Garrett BL; Gardner BO; Murphy E; Grimes P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Apr; 321():110714. PubMed ID: 33592556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The distinction between discriminability and reliability in forensic science.
    Smith AM; Neal TMS
    Sci Justice; 2021 Jul; 61(4):319-331. PubMed ID: 34172120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect.
    Martire KA; Kemp RI; Watkins I; Sayle MA; Newell BR
    Law Hum Behav; 2013 Jun; 37(3):197-207. PubMed ID: 23750600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability.
    Page M; Taylor J; Blenkin M
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Jul; 56(4):913-7. PubMed ID: 21729081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.
    Hans VP; Kaye DH; Dann BM; Farley EJ; Albertson S
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):60-71. PubMed ID: 20461543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.