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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35349174)

  • 1. Blind testing in firearms: Preliminary results from a blind quality control program.
    Neuman M; Hundl C; Grimaldi A; Eudaley D; Stein D; Stout P
    J Forensic Sci; 2022 May; 67(3):964-974. PubMed ID: 35349174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A part-declared blind testing program in firearms examination.
    Kerkhoff W; Stoel RD; Mattijssen EJAT; Berger CEH; Didden FW; Kerstholt JH
    Sci Justice; 2018 Jul; 58(4):258-263. PubMed ID: 29895457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Implementation of a Blind Quality Control Program in a Forensic Laboratory.
    Hundl C; Neuman M; Rairden A; Rearden P; Stout P
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 May; 65(3):815-822. PubMed ID: 31873940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Design and results of an exploratory double blind testing program in firearms examination.
    Kerkhoff W; Stoel RD; Berger CE; Mattijssen EJ; Hermsen R; Smits N; Hardy HJ
    Sci Justice; 2015 Dec; 55(6):514-9. PubMed ID: 26654088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Latent print quality in blind proficiency testing: Using quality metrics to examine laboratory performance.
    Gardner BO; Neuman M; Kelley S
    Forensic Sci Int; 2021 Jul; 324():110823. PubMed ID: 34004529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Repeatability and reproducibility of comparison decisions by firearms examiners.
    Monson KL; Smith ED; Peters EM
    J Forensic Sci; 2023 Sep; 68(5):1721-1740. PubMed ID: 37393551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Examination of the possibility to use Siamese networks for the comparison of firing pin marks.
    Giverts P; Sorokina K; Fedorenko V
    J Forensic Sci; 2022 Nov; 67(6):2416-2424. PubMed ID: 36149037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Planning, design and logistics of a decision analysis study: The FBI/Ames study involving forensic firearms examiners.
    Monson KL; Smith ED; Bajic SJ
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2022; 4():100221. PubMed ID: 35243285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of comparison decisions by forensic firearms examiners.
    Monson KL; Smith ED; Peters EM
    J Forensic Sci; 2023 Jan; 68(1):86-100. PubMed ID: 36183147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Juror appraisals of forensic evidence: Effects of blind proficiency and cross-examination.
    Crozier WE; Kukucka J; Garrett BL
    Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Oct; 315():110433. PubMed ID: 32763747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Perceptions of blind proficiency testing among latent print examiners.
    Gardner BO; Neuman M
    Sci Justice; 2023 Mar; 63(2):200-205. PubMed ID: 36870700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluating firearm examiner conclusion variability using cartridge case reproductions.
    Law EF; Morris KB
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Sep; 66(5):1704-1720. PubMed ID: 34057735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 2: Examiner use of the AFTE range of conclusions.
    Baldwin DP; Bajic SJ; Morris MD; Zamzow DS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2023 Aug; 349():111739. PubMed ID: 37257389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Implementing blind proficiency testing in forensic laboratories: Motivation, obstacles, and recommendations.
    Mejia R; Cuellar M; Salyards J
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2020; 2():293-298. PubMed ID: 33083776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The inconclusive category, entropy, and forensic firearm identification.
    Warren EM; Sheets HD
    Forensic Sci Int; 2023 Aug; 349():111741. PubMed ID: 37279628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A study of examiner accuracy in cartridge case comparisons. Part 1: Examiner error rates.
    Baldwin DP; Bajic SJ; Morris MD; Zamzow DS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2023 Aug; 349():111733. PubMed ID: 37257388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Surveying practicing firearm examiners.
    Scurich N; Garrett BL; Thompson RM
    Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2022; 4():100228. PubMed ID: 35510144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mock jurors' evaluation of firearm examiner testimony.
    Garrett BL; Scurich N; Crozier WE
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Oct; 44(5):412-423. PubMed ID: 33090867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An optimized procedure for obtaining DNA from fired and unfired ammunition.
    Montpetit S; O'Donnell P
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2015 Jul; 17():70-74. PubMed ID: 25828369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Validation Study of Bullet and Cartridge Case Comparisons Using Samples Representative of Actual Casework.
    Smith TP; Andrew Smith G; Snipes JB
    J Forensic Sci; 2016 Jul; 61(4):939-46. PubMed ID: 27135174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.