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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35510144)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The Development and Application of Random Match Probabilities to Firearm and Toolmark Identification.
    Murdock JE; Petraco NDK; Thornton JI; Neel MT; Weller TJ; Thompson RM; Hamby JE; Collins ER
    J Forensic Sci; 2017 May; 62(3):619-625. PubMed ID: 28449257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Results of the 3D Virtual Comparison Microscopy Error Rate (VCMER) Study for firearm forensics.
    Chapnick C; Weller TJ; Duez P; Meschke E; Marshall J; Lilien R
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Mar; 66(2):557-570. PubMed ID: 33104255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Development and Validation of a Virtual Examination Tool for Firearm Forensics,
    Duez P; Weller T; Brubaker M; Hockensmith RE; Lilien R
    J Forensic Sci; 2018 Jul; 63(4):1069-1084. PubMed ID: 29044577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. An investigation into the factors that influence toolmark identifications on ammunition discharged from semi-automatic pistols recovered from car fires.
    Collender MA; Doherty KAJ; Stanton KT
    Sci Justice; 2017 Jan; 57(1):41-52. PubMed ID: 28063584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. How often do fingerprint examiners disagree in routine casework?
    O'Connor R; Chapman A
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jul; 361():112139. PubMed ID: 38971142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Application of likelihood ratios for firearm and toolmark analysis.
    Bunch S; Wevers G
    Sci Justice; 2013 Jun; 53(2):223-9. PubMed ID: 23601733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reporting likelihood ratio for casework in firearm evidence identification.
    Song J; Song H
    J Forensic Sci; 2023 Mar; 68(2):399-406. PubMed ID: 36529462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer-based comparisons.
    Mattijssen EJAT; Witteman CLM; Berger CEH; Zheng XA; Soons JA; Stoel RD
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Jan; 66(1):96-111. PubMed ID: 32970858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.