128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34599363)
1. Evaluating Mixture Solution™- rapid and non-MCMC probabilistic mixture analysis.
Lucassen A; Ehlers K; Grobler PJ; Brenner CH
Int J Legal Med; 2021 Nov; 135(6):2275-2284. PubMed ID: 34599363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis.
Buckleton JS; Bright JA; Cheng K; Budowle B; Coble MD
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Nov; 37():172-179. PubMed ID: 30176439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Application of random match probability calculations to mixed STR profiles.
Bille T; Bright JA; Buckleton J
J Forensic Sci; 2013 Mar; 58(2):474-85. PubMed ID: 23425220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Exploring likelihood ratios assigned for siblings of the true mixture contributor as an alternate contributor.
Kelly H; Coble M; Kruijver M; Wivell R; Bright JA
J Forensic Sci; 2022 May; 67(3):1167-1175. PubMed ID: 35211970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Internal validation of STRmix™ - A multi laboratory response to PCAST.
Bright JA; Richards R; Kruijver M; Kelly H; McGovern C; Magee A; McWhorter A; Ciecko A; Peck B; Baumgartner C; Buettner C; McWilliams S; McKenna C; Gallacher C; Mallinder B; Wright D; Johnson D; Catella D; Lien E; O'Connor C; Duncan G; Bundy J; Echard J; Lowe J; Stewart J; Corrado K; Gentile S; Kaplan M; Hassler M; McDonald N; Hulme P; Oefelein RH; Montpetit S; Strong M; Noël S; Malsom S; Myers S; Welti S; Moretti T; McMahon T; Grill T; Kalafut T; Greer-Ritzheimer M; Beamer V; Taylor DA; Buckleton JS
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 May; 34():11-24. PubMed ID: 29367014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. CEESIt: A computational tool for the interpretation of STR mixtures.
Swaminathan H; Garg A; Grgicak CM; Medard M; Lun DS
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 May; 22():149-160. PubMed ID: 26946255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion.
Bieber FR; Buckleton JS; Budowle B; Butler JM; Coble MD
BMC Genet; 2016 Aug; 17(1):125. PubMed ID: 27580588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Using big data from probabilistic genotyping to solve crime.
Taylor D; Abarno D
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2022 Mar; 57():102631. PubMed ID: 34861631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accurate assessment of the weight of evidence for DNA mixtures by integrating the likelihood ratio.
Slooten K
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Mar; 27():1-16. PubMed ID: 27914277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. TrueAllele(®) Genotype Identification on DNA Mixtures Containing up to Five Unknown Contributors.
Perlin MW; Hornyak JM; Sugimoto G; Miller KW
J Forensic Sci; 2015 Jul; 60(4):857-68. PubMed ID: 26189920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Establishing the Limits of TrueAllele® Casework: A Validation Study.
Greenspoon SA; Schiermeier-Wood L; Jenkins BC
J Forensic Sci; 2015 Sep; 60(5):1263-76. PubMed ID: 26258391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Correcting forensic DNA errors.
Hampikian G
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Jul; 41():32-33. PubMed ID: 30947116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting.
Swaminathan H; Qureshi MO; Grgicak CM; Duffy K; Lun DS
PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207599. PubMed ID: 30458020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. STRmix™ collaborative exercise on DNA mixture interpretation.
Bright JA; Cheng K; Kerr Z; McGovern C; Kelly H; Moretti TR; Smith MA; Bieber FR; Budowle B; Coble MD; Alghafri R; Allen PS; Barber A; Beamer V; Buettner C; Russell M; Gehrig C; Hicks T; Charak J; Cheong-Wing K; Ciecko A; Davis CT; Donley M; Pedersen N; Gartside B; Granger D; Greer-Ritzheimer M; Reisinger E; Kennedy J; Grammer E; Kaplan M; Hansen D; Larsen HJ; Laureano A; Li C; Lien E; Lindberg E; Kelly C; Mallinder B; Malsom S; Yacovone-Margetts A; McWhorter A; Prajapati SM; Powell T; Shutler G; Stevenson K; Stonehouse AR; Smith L; Murakami J; Halsing E; Wright D; Clark L; Taylor DA; Buckleton J
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 May; 40():1-8. PubMed ID: 30665115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Probabilistic approaches to interpreting two-person DNA mixtures from post-coital specimens.
Rodriguez JJRB; Bright JA; Salvador JM; Laude RP; De Ungria MCA
Forensic Sci Int; 2019 Jul; 300():157-163. PubMed ID: 31112838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Distinguishing between donors and their relatives in complex DNA mixtures with binary models.
Slooten K
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 Mar; 21():95-109. PubMed ID: 26745184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Exclusion probabilities and likelihood ratios with applications to mixtures.
Slooten KJ; Egeland T
Int J Legal Med; 2016 Jan; 130(1):39-57. PubMed ID: 26160753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. PACE: Probabilistic Assessment for Contributor Estimation- A machine learning-based assessment of the number of contributors in DNA mixtures.
Marciano MA; Adelman JD
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Mar; 27():82-91. PubMed ID: 28040630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Developmental validation of PACE™: Automated artifact identification and contributor estimation for use with GlobalFiler™ and PowerPlex® fusion 6c generated data.
Marciano MA; Adelman JD
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Nov; 43():102140. PubMed ID: 31536876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
