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 *

221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33358191)

  • 1. Biasability and reliability of expert forensic document examiners.
    Dror IE; Scherr KC; Mohammed LA; MacLean CL; Cunningham L
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Jan; 318():110610. PubMed ID: 33358191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A study on factors that affect error rates in handwriting examinations of Korean characters by forensic document examiners and non-experts.
    Kang TY; Kim H; Yook S; Lee J
    Forensic Sci Int; 2022 May; 334():111266. PubMed ID: 35278787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What do the experts know? Calibration, precision, and the wisdom of crowds among forensic handwriting experts.
    Martire KA; Growns B; Navarro DJ
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Dec; 25(6):2346-2355. PubMed ID: 29667124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Contextual bias by Forensic Document Examination trainees: An empirical study from China.
    He N; Hao H
    Sci Justice; 2024 Jul; 64(4):360-366. PubMed ID: 39025561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for signature comparison.
    Sita J; Found B; Rogers DK
    J Forensic Sci; 2002 Sep; 47(5):1117-24. PubMed ID: 12353558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Meta-analytically quantifying the reliability and biasability of forensic experts.
    Dror I; Rosenthal R
    J Forensic Sci; 2008 Jul; 53(4):900-3. PubMed ID: 18489557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reliability of ordinal outcomes in forensic black-box studies.
    Arora HM; Kaplan-Damary N; Stern HS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jan; 354():111909. PubMed ID: 38104395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A hierarchy of expert performance as applied to forensic anthropology.
    Hartley S; Winburn AP
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Sep; 66(5):1617-1626. PubMed ID: 34180547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?
    Murrie DC; Boccaccini MT; Guarnera LA; Rufino KA
    Psychol Sci; 2013 Oct; 24(10):1889-97. PubMed ID: 23969777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy and reliability of forensic handwriting comparisons.
    Hicklin RA; Eisenhart L; Richetelli N; Miller MD; Belcastro P; Burkes TM; Parks CL; Smith MA; Buscaglia J; Peters EM; Perlman RS; Abonamah JV; Eckenrode BA
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Aug; 119(32):e2119944119. PubMed ID: 35914157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Handwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.
    Zlotnick J; Lin JR
    Forensic Sci Rev; 2001 Jul; 13(2):87-99. PubMed ID: 26256304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of contextual information on professional judgment: Reliability and biasability of expert workplace safety inspectors.
    MacLean CL; Dror IE
    J Safety Res; 2021 Jun; 77():13-22. PubMed ID: 34092303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis.
    Pena MM; Stoiloff S; Sparacino M; Schreiber Compo N
    J Forensic Sci; 2024 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 38922874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Forensic document examiners' skill in distinguishing between natural and disguised handwriting behaviors.
    Bird C; Found B; Rogers D
    J Forensic Sci; 2010 Sep; 55(5):1291-5. PubMed ID: 20533988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. On the "general acceptance" of handwriting identification principles.
    Saks MJ; VanderHaar H
    J Forensic Sci; 2005 Jan; 50(1):119-26. PubMed ID: 15831005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Simulation Detection in Handwritten Documents by Forensic Document Examiners.
    Kam M; Abichandani P; Hewett T
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 Jul; 60(4):936-41. PubMed ID: 26190151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias.
    Kukucka J; Kassin SM
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Jun; 38(3):256-70. PubMed ID: 24341837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli.
    Sneyd D; Schreiber Compo N; Rivard J; Pena M; Stoiloff S; Hernandez G
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Sep; 65(5):1507-1516. PubMed ID: 32628285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.