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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3422126)

  • 1. Bayesian interval estimation of genetic relationships: application to paternity testing.
    Goldgar DE; Thompson EA
    Am J Hum Genet; 1988 Jan; 42(1):135-42. PubMed ID: 3422126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Genetic evaluation in the presence of uncertain additive relationships. I. Use of phenotypic information to ascertain paternity.
    Sapp RL; Zhang W; Bertrand JK; Rekaya R
    J Anim Sci; 2007 Oct; 85(10):2391-400. PubMed ID: 17504957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Formalisation parental genotype recognition for the computation of probability of paternity (author's transl)].
    Salmon D
    Ann Genet; 1981; 24(2):93-9. PubMed ID: 6977296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Paternity exclusion power: comparative behaviour of autosomal and X-chromosomal markers in standard and deficient cases with inbreeding.
    Pinto N; Gusmão L; Egeland T; Amorim A
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2013 Feb; 7(2):290-5. PubMed ID: 23312390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Estimating mutation rates from paternity casework.
    Vicard P; Dawid AP; Mortera J; Lauritzen SL
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2008 Jan; 2(1):9-18. PubMed ID: 19083784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Setting the boundaries of prior influence on kinship relation testing: the case of many hypotheses.
    Hubig M; Sanft J; Muggenthaler H; Mall G
    Int J Legal Med; 2013 Nov; 127(6):1055-63. PubMed ID: 23377380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Exclusions and attributions of paternity: practical experiences of forensic genetics and statistics.
    Valentin J
    Am J Hum Genet; 1980 May; 32(3):420-31. PubMed ID: 6930157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A non-excluded set method for the calculation of paternity probability.
    Tai JJ; Chen MH
    Proc Natl Sci Counc Repub China B; 1994 Jan; 18(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 8029373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The probability distribution of the number of loci indicating exclusion in a core set of STR markers.
    Calafell F
    Int J Legal Med; 2000; 114(1-2):61-5. PubMed ID: 11197631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Genetic marker analysis in cases of disputed paternity when the alleged father is deceased.
    Smith RA; Gutendorf RW; McCloskey J
    Ann Clin Lab Sci; 1989; 19(5):332-6. PubMed ID: 2802512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of a genetic group and unknown paternity models for growth traits in Nellore cattle.
    Shiotsuki L; Cardoso FF; Silva JA; Albuquerque LG
    J Anim Sci; 2013 Nov; 91(11):5135-43. PubMed ID: 24045494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Object-oriented Bayesian networks for complex forensic DNA profiling problems.
    Dawid AP; Mortera J; Vicard P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Jul; 169(2-3):195-205. PubMed ID: 17055679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. General formulas of the estimated likelihood ratio Y/X in the diagnosis of paternity of a deceased putative father.
    Asano M; Minakata K; Hattori H
    Z Rechtsmed; 1980 Jan; 84(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 7376739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Blood groups and genetic markers polymorphism and probability of paternity.
    Salmon D; Salmon C
    Transfusion; 1980; 20(6):684-94. PubMed ID: 7434452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. No fallacies in the formulation of the paternity index.
    Baur MP; Elston RC; Gürtler H; Henningsen K; Hummel K; Matsumoto H; Mayr W; Moris JW; Niejenhuis L; Polesky H
    Am J Hum Genet; 1986 Oct; 39(4):528-36. PubMed ID: 3766545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Microsatellite typing in a paternity case against a deceased man whose two brothers were available for testing.
    Tamaki Y; Fukuda M; Wang W; Kishida T
    Nihon Hoigaku Zasshi; 1996 Apr; 50(2):82-6. PubMed ID: 8691654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A general approach to power calculation for relationship testing.
    Egeland T; Pinto N; Vigeland MD
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Mar; 9():186-90. PubMed ID: 23810238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Beyond traditional paternity and identification cases. Selecting the most probable pedigree.
    Egeland T; Mostad PF; Mevâg B; Stenersen M
    Forensic Sci Int; 2000 May; 110(1):47-59. PubMed ID: 10802200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects.
    Pradhan S; Song B; Lee J; Chae JW; Kim KI; Back HM; Han N; Kwon KI; Yun HY
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):154. PubMed ID: 29191177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Basic concepts about paternity testing].
    Lagos M; Poggi H; Mellado C
    Rev Med Chil; 2011 Apr; 139(4):542-7. PubMed ID: 21879196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.