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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33985678)

  • 1. Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison.
    Morrison GS; Enzinger E; Hughes V; Jessen M; Meuwly D; Neumann C; Planting S; Thompson WC; van der Vloed D; Ypma RJF; Zhang C; Anonymous A; Anonymous B
    Sci Justice; 2021 May; 61(3):299-309. PubMed ID: 33985678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part III: Groups of collaborating listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology.
    Bali AS; Basu N; Weber P; Rosas-Aguilar C; Edmond G; Martire KA; Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jul; 360():112048. PubMed ID: 38733653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use of relevant data, quantitative measurements, and statistical models to calculate a likelihood ratio for a Chinese forensic voice comparison case involving two sisters.
    Zhang C; Morrison GS; Enzinger E
    Forensic Sci Int; 2016 Oct; 267():115-124. PubMed ID: 27592142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Empirical test of the performance of an acoustic-phonetic approach to forensic voice comparison under conditions similar to those of a real case.
    Enzinger E; Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Aug; 277():30-40. PubMed ID: 28575731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A demonstration of the application of the new paradigm for the evaluation of forensic evidence under conditions reflecting those of a real forensic-voice-comparison case.
    Enzinger E; Morrison GS; Ochoa F
    Sci Justice; 2016 Jan; 56(1):42-57. PubMed ID: 26746825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert?
    Kirchhübel C; Brown G; Foulkes P
    Sci Justice; 2023 Mar; 63(2):251-257. PubMed ID: 36870704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Speaker identification in courtroom contexts - Part I: Individual listeners compared to forensic voice comparison based on automatic-speaker-recognition technology.
    Basu N; Bali AS; Weber P; Rosas-Aguilar C; Edmond G; Martire KA; Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2022 Dec; 341():111499. PubMed ID: 36283276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2014 May; 54(3):245-56. PubMed ID: 24796954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2009 Dec; 49(4):298-308. PubMed ID: 20120610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Validations of an alpha version of the E
    Weber P; Enzinger E; Labrador B; Lozano-Díez A; Ramos D; González-Rodríguez J; Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2022; 4():100223. PubMed ID: 35281657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2011 Sep; 51(3):91-8. PubMed ID: 21889105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Voicing concerns: The balance between data protection principles and research developments in forensic speech science.
    Brown G; Ross S; Kirchhübel C
    Sci Justice; 2021 Jul; 61(4):311-318. PubMed ID: 34172119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison - A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions.
    Morrison GS; Enzinger E; Zhang C
    Sci Justice; 2016 Dec; 56(6):492-497. PubMed ID: 27914557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An empirical estimate of the precision of likelihood ratios from a forensic-voice-comparison system.
    Morrison GS; Zhang C; Rose P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2011 May; 208(1-3):59-65. PubMed ID: 21131149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The impact in forensic voice comparison of lack of calibration and of mismatched conditions between the known-speaker recording and the relevant-population sample recordings.
    Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2018 Feb; 283():e1-e7. PubMed ID: 29291950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Automated face recognition in forensic science: Review and perspectives.
    Jacquet M; Champod C
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Feb; 307():110124. PubMed ID: 31927397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In the context of forensic casework, are there meaningful metrics of the degree of calibration?
    Morrison GS
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2021; 3():100157. PubMed ID: 34179740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Questions, propositions and assessing different levels of evidence: Forensic voice comparison in practice.
    Hughes V; Rhodes R
    Sci Justice; 2018 Jul; 58(4):250-257. PubMed ID: 29895456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Calibration of score based likelihood ratio estimation in automated forensic facial image comparison.
    Rodriguez AM; Geradts Z; Worring M
    Forensic Sci Int; 2022 May; 334():111239. PubMed ID: 35364422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.