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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35281657)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Effects of language mismatch in automatic forensic voice comparison using deep learning embeddings.
    Sztahó D; Fejes A
    J Forensic Sci; 2023 May; 68(3):871-883. PubMed ID: 36999742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Evidential value of voice quality acoustics in forensic voice comparison.
    Chan RKW
    Forensic Sci Int; 2023 Jul; 348():111725. PubMed ID: 37182279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Combination of deep speaker embeddings for diarisation.
    Sun G; Zhang C; Woodland PC
    Neural Netw; 2021 Sep; 141():372-384. PubMed ID: 33984663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On compensation of mismatched recording conditions in the Bayesian approach for forensic automatic speaker recognition.
    Botti F; Alexander A; Drygajlo A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2004 Dec; 146 Suppl():S101-6. PubMed ID: 15639552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Euclidean Distances as measures of speaker similarity including identical twin pairs: A forensic investigation using source and filter voice characteristics.
    San Segundo E; Tsanas A; Gómez-Vilda P
    Forensic Sci Int; 2017 Jan; 270():25-38. PubMed ID: 27912151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speaker-individuality in suprasegmental temporal features: Implications for forensic voice comparison.
    Leemann A; Kolly MJ; Dellwo V
    Forensic Sci Int; 2014 May; 238():59-67. PubMed ID: 24675042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Likelihood-ratio forensic voice comparison using parametric representations of the formant trajectories of diphthongs.
    Morrison GS
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2009 Apr; 125(4):2387-97. PubMed ID: 19354412
    [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. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The effect of mismatched recording conditions on human and automatic speaker recognition in forensic applications.
    Alexander A; Botti F; Dessimoz D; Drygajlo A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2004 Dec; 146 Suppl():S95-9. PubMed ID: 15639600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Speaker-dependent characteristics of the nasals.
    Amino K; Arai T
    Forensic Sci Int; 2009 Mar; 185(1-3):21-8. PubMed ID: 19162417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Ensemble learning with speaker embeddings in multiple speech task stimuli for depression detection.
    Liu Z; Yu H; Li G; Chen Q; Ding Z; Feng L; Yao Z; Hu B
    Front Neurosci; 2023; 17():1141621. PubMed ID: 37034153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Towards understanding speaker discrimination abilities in humans and machines for text-independent short utterances of different speech styles.
    Park SJ; Yeung G; Vesselinova N; Kreiman J; Keating PA; Alwan A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jul; 144(1):375. PubMed ID: 30075658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.