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.
124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38522325)
1. From data to a validated score-based LR system: A practitioner's guide. Leegwater AJ; Vergeer P; Alberink I; van der Ham LV; van de Wetering J; El Harchaoui R; Bosma W; Ypma RJF; Sjerps MJ Forensic Sci Int; 2024 Apr; 357():111994. PubMed ID: 38522325 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Implementation and assessment of a likelihood ratio approach for the evaluation of LA-ICP-MS evidence in forensic glass analysis. van Es A; Wiarda W; Hordijk M; Alberink I; Vergeer P Sci Justice; 2017 May; 57(3):181-192. PubMed ID: 28454627 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The use of LA-ICP-MS databases to calculate likelihood ratios for the forensic analysis of glass evidence. Corzo R; Hoffman T; Weis P; Franco-Pedroso J; Ramos D; Almirall J Talanta; 2018 Aug; 186():655-661. PubMed ID: 29784417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An overview of log likelihood ratio cost in forensic science - Where is it used and what values can we expect? van Lierop S; Ramos D; Sjerps M; Ypma R Forensic Sci Int Synerg; 2024; 8():100466. PubMed ID: 38645839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Performance Study of a Score-based Likelihood Ratio System for Forensic Fingermark Comparison. Leegwater AJ; Meuwly D; Sjerps M; Vergeer P; Alberink I J Forensic Sci; 2017 May; 62(3):626-640. PubMed ID: 28168685 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Numerical likelihood ratios outputted by LR systems are often based on extrapolation: When to stop extrapolating? Vergeer P; van Es A; de Jongh A; Alberink I; Stoel R Sci Justice; 2016 Dec; 56(6):482-491. PubMed ID: 27914556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Likelihood ratio data to report the validation of a forensic fingerprint evaluation method. Ramos D; Haraksim R; Meuwly D Data Brief; 2017 Feb; 10():75-92. PubMed ID: 27981197 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting. Swaminathan H; Qureshi MO; Grgicak CM; Duffy K; Lun DS PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207599. PubMed ID: 30458020 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A method for forensic gasoline comparison in fire debris samples: A numerical likelihood ratio system. Vergeer P; Hendrikse JN; Grutters MMP; Peschier LJC Sci Justice; 2020 Sep; 60(5):438-450. PubMed ID: 32873384 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Complex DNA mixture analysis in a forensic context: evaluating the probative value using a likelihood ratio model. Haned H; Benschop CCG; Gill PD; Sijen T Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2015 May; 16():17-25. PubMed ID: 25485478 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. On the likelihood of "encapsulating all uncertainty". Martire KA; Edmond G; Navarro DJ; Newell BR Sci Justice; 2017 Jan; 57(1):76-79. PubMed ID: 28063591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Using the Nondonor Distribution to Improve Communication and Inform Decision Making for Low LRs from Minor Contributors in Mixed DNA Profiles. Schuerman C; Kalafut T; Buchanan C; Sutton J; Bright JA J Forensic Sci; 2020 Jul; 65(4):1072-1084. PubMed ID: 32134501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. What should a forensic practitioner's likelihood ratio be? II. Morrison GS Sci Justice; 2017 Nov; 57(6):472-476. PubMed ID: 29173462 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quantification of forensic genetic evidence: Comparison of results obtained by qualitative and quantitative software for real casework samples. Costa C; Figueiredo C; Amorim A; Costa S; Ferreira PM; Pinto N Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2022 Jul; 59():102715. PubMed ID: 35490558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparison of likelihood ratios obtained from EuroForMix and STRmix™. Cheng K; Bleka Ø; Gill P; Curran J; Bright JA; Taylor D; Buckleton J J Forensic Sci; 2021 Nov; 66(6):2138-2155. PubMed ID: 34553371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Objectifying evidence evaluation for gunshot residue comparisons using machine learning on criminal case data. Matzen T; Kukurin C; van de Wetering J; Ariëns S; Bosma W; Knijnenberg A; Stamouli A; Ypma RJ Forensic Sci Int; 2022 Jun; 335():111293. PubMed ID: 35462180 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Bayesian networks and the value of the evidence for the forensic two-trace transfer problem. Gittelson S; Biedermann A; Bozza S; Taroni F J Forensic Sci; 2012 Sep; 57(5):1199-216. PubMed ID: 22458915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Response paper to "The likelihood of encapsulating all uncertainty": The relevance of additional information for the LR. Slooten K; Berger CEH Sci Justice; 2017 Nov; 57(6):468-471. PubMed ID: 29173461 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Automated interpretation of comparison scores for firearm toolmarks on cartridge case primers. Baiker-Sørensen M; Alberink I; Granell LB; van der Ham L; Mattijssen EJAT; Smith ED; Soons J; Vergeer P; Zheng XA Forensic Sci Int; 2023 Dec; 353():111858. PubMed ID: 37863005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Why calibrating LR-systems is best practice. A reaction to "The evaluation of evidence for microspectrophotometry data using functional data analysis", in FSI 305. Vergeer P; Alberink I; Sjerps M; Ypma R Forensic Sci Int; 2020 Sep; 314():110388. PubMed ID: 32663721 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]