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 *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32381238)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Formulation and communication of evaluative forensic science expert opinion-A GHEP-ISFG contribution to the establishment of standards.
    Amorim A; Crespillo M; Luque JA; Prieto L; Garcia O; Gusmão L; Aler M; Barrio PA; Saragoni VG; Pinto N
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 Nov; 25():210-213. PubMed ID: 27690358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effective use of forensic science in volume crime investigations: identifying recurring themes in the literature.
    Ludwig A; Fraser J
    Sci Justice; 2014 Jan; 54(1):81-8. PubMed ID: 24438782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. What does a digital forensics opinion look like? A comparative study of digital forensics and forensic science reporting practices.
    Sunde N
    Sci Justice; 2021 Sep; 61(5):586-596. PubMed ID: 34482939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Just truth? Carefully applying history, philosophy and sociology of science to the forensic use of CCTV images.
    Edmond G
    Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci; 2013 Mar; 44(1):80-91. PubMed ID: 23036862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Open forensic science.
    Chin JM; Ribeiro G; Rairden A
    J Law Biosci; 2019 Oct; 6(1):255-288. PubMed ID: 31879566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: reports of forensic comparison of glass.
    Howes LM; Kirkbride KP; Kelty SF; Julian R; Kemp N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2014 Mar; 236():54-66. PubMed ID: 24529775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science.
    Saks MJ; Koehler JJ
    Science; 2005 Aug; 309(5736):892-5. PubMed ID: 16081727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research.
    Howes LM
    Sci Justice; 2015 Mar; 55(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 25754001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A cultural change to enable improved decision-making in forensic science: A six phased approach.
    Earwaker H; Nakhaeizadeh S; Smit NM; Morgan RM
    Sci Justice; 2020 Jan; 60(1):9-19. PubMed ID: 31924294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Sexual offences--selected cases].
    Łabecka M; Jarzabek-Bielecka G; Lorkiewicz-Muszyńska D
    Ginekol Pol; 2013 Apr; 84(4):309-13. PubMed ID: 23700866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The nature of forensic science opinion--a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings.
    Jackson G; Jones S; Booth G; Champod C; Evett IW
    Sci Justice; 2006; 46(1):33-44. PubMed ID: 16878783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*
    Kukucka J; Hiley A; Kassin SM
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1978-1990. PubMed ID: 32790911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Dismantling the justice silos: Flowcharting the role and expertise of forensic science, forensic medicine and allied health in adult sexual assault investigations.
    Kelty SF; Julian R; Bruenisholz E; Wilson-Wilde L
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Apr; 285():21-28. PubMed ID: 29427705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The Griffiths Question Map: A Forensic Tool For Expert Witnesses' Assessments of Witnesses and Victims' Statements.
    Dodier O; Denault V
    J Forensic Sci; 2018 Jan; 63(1):266-274. PubMed ID: 28240349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Forensic assessment may be based on common sense assumptions rather than science.
    Areh I
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2020; 71():101607. PubMed ID: 32768107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion Association of Forensic Science Providers.
    Willis S
    Sci Justice; 2010 Mar; 50(1):49. PubMed ID: 20408380
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part I--A quantitative analysis of the exclusion of forensic identification science evidence.
    Page M; Taylor J; Blenkin M
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Sep; 56(5):1180-4. PubMed ID: 21884119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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