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.
126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7607453)
1. Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of forensic DNA evidence: three case studies. Thompson WC Genetica; 1995; 96(1-2):153-68. PubMed ID: 7607453 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Statement by DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Haemogenetics concerning the National Academy of Sciences report on DNA Technology in Forensic Science in the USA. Forensic Sci Int; 1993 Apr; 59(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 8505025 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: Assessing the value of forensic biological evidence - Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions: Part I: evaluation of DNA profiling comparisons given (sub-) source propositions. Gill P; Hicks T; Butler JM; Connolly E; Gusmão L; Kokshoorn B; Morling N; van Oorschot RAH; Parson W; Prinz M; Schneider PM; Sijen T; Taylor D Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Sep; 36():189-202. PubMed ID: 30041098 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. DNA single locus profiles: tests for the robustness of statistical procedures within the context of forensic science. Evett IW; Pinchin R Int J Legal Med; 1991; 104(5):267-72. PubMed ID: 1685892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Interlaboratory comparison of autoradiographic DNA profiling measurements: precision and concordance. Duewer DL; Lalonde SA; Aubin RA; Fourney RM; Reeder DJ J Forensic Sci; 1998 May; 43(3):465-71. PubMed ID: 9608684 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis. Buckleton JS; Bright JA; Cheng K; Budowle B; Coble MD Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Nov; 37():172-179. PubMed ID: 30176439 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The forensic debut of the NRC's DNA report: population structure, ceiling frequencies and the need for numbers. Kaye DH Genetica; 1995; 96(1-2):99-105. PubMed ID: 7607463 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Forensic typing of autosomal SNPs with a 29 SNP-multiplex--results of a collaborative EDNAP exercise. Sanchez JJ; Børsting C; Balogh K; Berger B; Bogus M; Butler JM; Carracedo A; Court DS; Dixon LA; Filipović B; Fondevila M; Gill P; Harrison CD; Hohoff C; Huel R; Ludes B; Parson W; Parsons TJ; Petkovski E; Phillips C; Schmitter H; Schneider PM; Vallone PM; Morling N Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2008 Jun; 2(3):176-83. PubMed ID: 19083818 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Forensic DNA goes to court with O.J. Nowak R Science; 1994 Sep; 265(5177):1352-4. PubMed ID: 7915432 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. DNA forensic science 1995. Morton NE Eur J Hum Genet; 1995; 3(2):139-44. PubMed ID: 7552142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Correcting forensic DNA errors. Hampikian G Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2019 Jul; 41():32-33. PubMed ID: 30947116 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quality assessment of Mycobacterium tuberculosis genotyping in a large laboratory network. Braden CR; Crawford JT; Schable BA Emerg Infect Dis; 2002 Nov; 8(11):1210-5. PubMed ID: 12453344 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: revised and extended guidelines for mitochondrial DNA typing. Parson W; Gusmão L; Hares DR; Irwin JA; Mayr WR; Morling N; Pokorak E; Prinz M; Salas A; Schneider PM; Parsons TJ; Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Nov; 13():134-42. PubMed ID: 25117402 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Thompson WC; Taroni F; Aitken CG J Forensic Sci; 2003 Jan; 48(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 12570198 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles (GHEP-MIX06). Reporting conclusions: Results and evaluation. Barrio PA; Crespillo M; Luque JA; Aler M; Baeza-Richer C; Baldassarri L; Carnevali E; Coufalova P; Flores I; García O; García MA; González R; Hernández A; Inglés V; Luque GM; Mosquera-Miguel A; Pedrosa S; Pontes ML; Porto MJ; Posada Y; Ramella MI; Ribeiro T; Riego E; Sala A; Saragoni VG; Serrano A; Vannelli S Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2018 Jul; 35():156-163. PubMed ID: 29783171 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Two different multi-locus probes MZ1.3 and (CAC)5 show nearly the same RFLP pattern. Luckenbach C; Rodewyk S; Ritter H Int J Legal Med; 1991; 104(5):303-5. PubMed ID: 1685895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Gill P; Brenner CH; Buckleton JS; Carracedo A; Krawczak M; Mayr WR; Morling N; Prinz M; Schneider PM; Weir BS; Forensic Sci Int; 2006 Jul; 160(2-3):90-101. PubMed ID: 16750605 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Logical implications of applying the principles of population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence. Triggs CM; Buckleton JS Forensic Sci Int; 2002 Aug; 128(3):108-14. PubMed ID: 12175788 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. DNA fingerprinting. The future of forensic dentistry--a review. Diwaker NR; Rajeshwari ; Rao B Indian J Dent Res; 2001; 12(2):81-8. PubMed ID: 11665401 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]