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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32650935)

  • 21. The use of interprofessional peer examiners in an objective structured clinical examination: can dental students act as examiners?
    Ogden GR; Green M; Ker JS
    Br Dent J; 2000 Aug; 189(3):160-4. PubMed ID: 11021034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Repeatability and reproducibility of comparison decisions by firearms examiners.
    Monson KL; Smith ED; Peters EM
    J Forensic Sci; 2023 Sep; 68(5):1721-1740. PubMed ID: 37393551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Contextual information management: An example of independent-checking in the review of laboratory-based bloodstain pattern analysis.
    Osborne NKP; Taylor MC
    Sci Justice; 2018 May; 58(3):226-231. PubMed ID: 29685304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Does suggestive information cause a confirmation bias in bullet comparisons?
    Kerstholt J; Eikelboom A; Dijkman T; Stoel R; Hermsen R; van Leuven B
    Forensic Sci Int; 2010 May; 198(1-3):138-42. PubMed ID: 20207514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Cognitive and contextual influences in determination of latent fingerprint suitability for identification judgments.
    Fraser-Mackenzie PA; Dror IE; Wertheim K
    Sci Justice; 2013 Jun; 53(2):144-53. PubMed ID: 23601721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program.
    Neuman M; Hundl C; Grimaldi A; Eudaley D; Stein D; Stout P
    J Forensic Sci; 2022 May; 67(3):964-974. PubMed ID: 35349174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. How Cross-Examination on Subjectivity and Bias Affects Jurors' Evaluations of Forensic Science Evidence.
    Thompson WC; Scurich N
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Sep; 64(5):1379-1388. PubMed ID: 30791101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The effect of contextual information on decision-making in forensic toxicology.
    Hamnett HJ; Dror IE
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2020; 2():339-348. PubMed ID: 33385132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. How often do fingerprint examiners disagree in routine casework?
    O'Connor R; Chapman A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jul; 361():112139. PubMed ID: 38971142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Australasian College for Emergency Medicine examiner peer review process: Development and implementation.
    Yuen A; Rogers IR; Hazell W
    Emerg Med Australas; 2011 Oct; 23(5):624-31. PubMed ID: 21995478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The role of alternative hypotheses in reducing bias in forensic medical experts' decision making.
    Lidén M; Thiblin I; Dror IE
    Sci Justice; 2023 Sep; 63(5):581-587. PubMed ID: 37718005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Don't Judge a Book by its Cover: Examiner Expectancy Effects Predict Neuropsychological Performance for Individuals Judged as Chronic Cannabis Users.
    Sodos LM; Hirst RB; Watson J; Vaughn D
    Arch Clin Neuropsychol; 2018 Nov; 33(7):821-831. PubMed ID: 29342226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Validity of forensic cartridge-case comparisons.
    Guyll M; Madon S; Yang Y; Burd KA; Wells G
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2023 May; 120(20):e2210428120. PubMed ID: 37155908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Mock jurors' evaluation of firearm examiner testimony.
    Garrett BL; Scurich N; Crozier WE
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Oct; 44(5):412-423. PubMed ID: 33090867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation.
    Dror IE; Hampikian G
    Sci Justice; 2011 Dec; 51(4):204-8. PubMed ID: 22137054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A part-declared blind testing program in firearms examination.
    Kerkhoff W; Stoel RD; Mattijssen EJAT; Berger CEH; Didden FW; Kerstholt JH
    Sci Justice; 2018 Jul; 58(4):258-263. PubMed ID: 29895457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Cognitive bias in forensic anthropology: visual assessment of skeletal remains is susceptible to confirmation bias.
    Nakhaeizadeh S; Dror IE; Morgan RM
    Sci Justice; 2014 May; 54(3):208-14. PubMed ID: 24796950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Bias analysis in forensic and non-forensic psychiatric assessments.
    Escolà-Gascón Á; Dagnall N; Drinkwater K
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2023; 88():101891. PubMed ID: 37148618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Measuring what latent fingerprint examiners consider sufficient information for individualization determinations.
    Ulery BT; Hicklin RA; Roberts MA; Buscaglia J
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e110179. PubMed ID: 25372036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.