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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33387944)

  • 1. Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al.
    Stiffelman B
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2021 Mar; 51():102454. PubMed ID: 33387944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A review of likelihood ratios in forensic science based on a critique of Stiffelman "No longer the Gold standard: Probabilistic genotyping is changing the nature of DNA evidence in criminal trials".
    Buckleton J; Robertson B; Curran J; Berger C; Taylor D; Bright JA; Hicks T; Gittelson S; Evett I; Pugh S; Jackson G; Kelly H; Kalafut T; Bieber FR
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 May; 310():110251. PubMed ID: 32203853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The prosecutor's fallacy--a pitfall in interpreting probabilities in forensic evidence.
    Leung WC
    Med Sci Law; 2002 Jan; 42(1):44-50. PubMed ID: 11848139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Letter to the Editor--The prosecutor's fallacy in George Clarke's Justice and Science: Trials and Triumphs of DNA Evidence.
    Thompson WC
    J Forensic Sci; 2009 Mar; 54(2):504; author reply 505. PubMed ID: 19261061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The prosecutor's and defendant's Bayesian nomograms.
    Riancho JA; Zarrabeitia MT
    Int J Legal Med; 2002 Oct; 116(5):312-3. PubMed ID: 12376846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Epidemiology visualized: the prosecutor's fallacy.
    Westreich D; Iliinsky N
    Am J Epidemiol; 2014 May; 179(9):1125-7. PubMed ID: 24607595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Inference with legal evidence: common sense is necessary, but not sufficient.
    Matthews RA
    Med Sci Law; 2004 Jul; 44(3):189-92. PubMed ID: 15296239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength.
    Smith LL; Bull R; Holliday R
    J Forensic Sci; 2011 Mar; 56(2):409-14. PubMed ID: 21210812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Legal perceptions of forensic DNA profiling part I: a review of the legal literature.
    Walsh SJ
    Forensic Sci Int; 2005 Dec; 155(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 16216711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Science and justice from a prosecutor's perspective.
    Calvert-Smith D
    Sci Justice; 2001; 41(2):121-6. PubMed ID: 11393942
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. LoComatioN: a software tool for the analysis of low copy number DNA profiles.
    Gill P; Kirkham A; Curran J
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Mar; 166(2-3):128-38. PubMed ID: 16759831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Child sexual abuse--Medical statement conclusions in criminal legal process.
    Joki-Erkkilä M; Niemi J; Ellonen N
    Forensic Sci Int; 2014 Jun; 239():31-6. PubMed ID: 24727220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Validation of probabilistic genotyping software for use in forensic DNA casework: Definitions and illustrations.
    Haned H; Gill P; Lohmueller K; Inman K; Rudin N
    Sci Justice; 2016 Mar; 56(2):104-8. PubMed ID: 26976468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Correcting forensic DNA errors.
    Hampikian G
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Jul; 41():32-33. PubMed ID: 30947116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Performance of a method for weighting a range in the number of contributors in probabilistic genotyping.
    McGovern C; Cheng K; Kelly H; Ciecko A; Taylor D; Buckleton JS; Bright JA
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Sep; 48():102352. PubMed ID: 32707473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Internal validation of STRmix™ for the interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles.
    Moretti TR; Just RS; Kehl SC; Willis LE; Buckleton JS; Bright JA; Taylor DA; Onorato AJ
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Jul; 29():126-144. PubMed ID: 28504203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Probabilistic Genotyping Software STRmix: Utility and Evidence for its Validity.
    Buckleton JS; Bright JA; Gittelson S; Moretti TR; Onorato AJ; Bieber FR; Budowle B; Taylor DA
    J Forensic Sci; 2019 Mar; 64(2):393-405. PubMed ID: 30132900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science.
    Lynch M
    Endeavour; 2003 Jun; 27(2):93-7. PubMed ID: 12798816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bayesian networks and dissonant items of evidence: A case study.
    De March I; Taroni F
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jan; 44():102172. PubMed ID: 31629186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An assessment of the performance of the probabilistic genotyping software EuroForMix: Trends in likelihood ratios and analysis of Type I & II errors.
    Benschop CCG; Nijveld A; Duijs FE; Sijen T
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Sep; 42():31-38. PubMed ID: 31212207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.