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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35987091)

  • 1. Accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of forensic footwear examiner decisions.
    Austin Hicklin R; McVicker BC; Parks C; LeMay J; Richetelli N; Smith M; Buscaglia J; Perlman RS; Peters EM; Eckenrode BA
    Forensic Sci Int; 2022 Oct; 339():111418. PubMed ID: 35987091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy and reproducibility of forensic tire examination decisions.
    Richetelli N; LeMay J; Dunagan KM; Parks CL; Hicklin RA; Chapman WJ
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 May; 358():112009. PubMed ID: 38581823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Novices cannot fill the examiners' shoes: Evidence of footwear examiners' expertise in shoe comparisons.
    Chapman R; Summersby S; Lang T; Raymond J; Ballantyne K
    Sci Justice; 2023 Sep; 63(5):598-611. PubMed ID: 37718007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Repeatability and reproducibility of decisions by latent fingerprint examiners.
    Ulery BT; Hicklin RA; Buscaglia J; Roberts MA
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(3):e32800. PubMed ID: 22427888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reliability of ordinal outcomes in forensic black-box studies.
    Arora HM; Kaplan-Damary N; Stern HS
    Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Jan; 354():111909. PubMed ID: 38104395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quantitative evaluation of footwear evidence: Initial workflow for an end-to-end system.
    Venkatasubramanian G; Hegde V; Lund SP; Iyer H; Herman M
    J Forensic Sci; 2021 Nov; 66(6):2232-2251. PubMed ID: 34374992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Forensic Footwear Reliability: Part I-Participant Demographics and Examiner Agreement.
    Speir JA; Richetelli N; Hammer L
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1852-1870. PubMed ID: 32898292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Forensic Footwear Reliability: Part III-Positive Predictive Value, Error Rates, and Inter-Rater Reliability.
    Richetelli N; Hammer L; Speir JA
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1883-1893. PubMed ID: 32960978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Estimate of the random match frequency of acquired characteristics in a forensic footwear database.
    Smale AN; Speir JA
    Sci Justice; 2023 May; 63(3):427-437. PubMed ID: 37169469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Forensic Footwear Reliability: Part II-Range of Conclusions, Accuracy, and Consensus.
    Richetelli N; Hammer L; Speir JA
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Nov; 65(6):1871-1882. PubMed ID: 32940930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy and reliability of forensic handwriting comparisons.
    Hicklin RA; Eisenhart L; Richetelli N; Miller MD; Belcastro P; Burkes TM; Parks CL; Smith MA; Buscaglia J; Peters EM; Perlman RS; Abonamah JV; Eckenrode BA
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Aug; 119(32):e2119944119. PubMed ID: 35914157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli.
    Sneyd D; Schreiber Compo N; Rivard J; Pena M; Stoiloff S; Hernandez G
    J Forensic Sci; 2020 Sep; 65(5):1507-1516. PubMed ID: 32628285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions.
    Ulery BT; Hicklin RA; Buscaglia J; Roberts MA
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2011 May; 108(19):7733-8. PubMed ID: 21518906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis.
    Pena MM; Stoiloff S; Sparacino M; Schreiber Compo N
    J Forensic Sci; 2024 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 38922874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for signature comparison.
    Sita J; Found B; Rogers DK
    J Forensic Sci; 2002 Sep; 47(5):1117-24. PubMed ID: 12353558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.