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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36870704)

  • 1. What does method validation look like for forensic voice comparison by a human expert?
    Kirchhübel C; Brown G; Foulkes P
    Sci Justice; 2023 Mar; 63(2):251-257. PubMed ID: 36870704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: testing of validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2014 May; 54(3):245-56. PubMed ID: 24796954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Voicing concerns: The balance between data protection principles and research developments in forensic speech science.
    Brown G; Ross S; Kirchhübel C
    Sci Justice; 2021 Jul; 61(4):311-318. PubMed ID: 34172119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The forensic expert witness--an issue of competency.
    Hiss J; Freund M; Kahana T
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 May; 168(2-3):89-94. PubMed ID: 16842948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Foundations of the Comparison Forensic Sciences: Report of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
    Cordner S; Ranson D; Bassed R
    J Law Med; 2016; 24(2):297-302. PubMed ID: 30137704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Refining the relevant population in forensic voice comparison - A response to Hicks et alii (2015) The importance of distinguishing information from evidence/observations when formulating propositions.
    Morrison GS; Enzinger E; Zhang C
    Sci Justice; 2016 Dec; 56(6):492-497. PubMed ID: 27914557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reliability of human-supervised formant-trajectory measurement for forensic voice comparison.
    Zhang C; Morrison GS; Ochoa F; Enzinger E
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2013 Jan; 133(1):EL54-60. PubMed ID: 23298018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Forensic voice comparison and the paradigm shift.
    Morrison GS
    Sci Justice; 2009 Dec; 49(4):298-308. PubMed ID: 20120610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The scientific reinvention of forensic science.
    Koehler JJ; Mnookin JL; Saks MJ
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2023 Oct; 120(41):e2301840120. PubMed ID: 37782789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Scientific guidelines for evaluating the validity of forensic feature-comparison methods.
    Scurich N; Faigman DL; Albright TD
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2023 Oct; 120(41):e2301843120. PubMed ID: 37782809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena.
    Broeders AP
    Forensic Sci Int; 2006 Jun; 159(2-3):148-57. PubMed ID: 16226860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The relation between speech tempo, loudness, and fundamental frequency: an important issue in forensic speaker recognition.
    Künzel HJ; Masthoff HR; Köster JP
    Sci Justice; 1995; 35(4):291-5. PubMed ID: 7496828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Do we need a forensic science teaching network?
    Carlysle-Davies F
    Sci Justice; 2022 Nov; 62(6):827-829. PubMed ID: 36400505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Proposing Problem-Based Learning for teaching future forensic speech scientists.
    Brown G
    Sci Justice; 2022 Nov; 62(6):669-675. PubMed ID: 36400488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An Approach to Speaker Identification.
    Hollien H
    J Forensic Sci; 2016 Mar; 61(2):334-344. PubMed ID: 27404606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.