Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Extending the discussion on inconsistency in forensic decisions and results.

Journal of forensic sciences - 1 Jul 2024

Buckleton John, Bright Jo-Anne, Taylor Duncan, Curran James, Kalafut Tim

Abstract excerpt

The subject of inter- and intra-laboratory inconsistency was recently raised in a commentary by Itiel Dror. We re-visit an inter-laboratory trial, with which some of the authors of this current discussion were associated, to diagnose the causes of any differences in the likelihood ratios (LRs) assigned using probabilistic genotyping software. Some of the variation was due to different decisions that would be made...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Decision Making
Share to DNA Fingerprinting
Share to Forensic Genetics

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy Delete account & data About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Genotype

Share to Laboratories

Share to Likelihood Functions

Share to Monte Carlo Method

Share to Software

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 38853374
DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.15558

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 7 Sept 2026. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-09-08.1.

Source receipt: pubmed, retrieved 7 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence. Graph snapshot: 2026-09-29.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Extending the discussion on inconsistency in forensic decisions and results.PMID 38853374Read ↗

An inter-laboratory comparison of probabilistic genotyping parameters and evaluation of performance on DNA mixtures from different laboratories.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Examining performance and likelihood ratios for two likelihood ratio systems using the PROVEDIt dataset.Semantic proximity Read ↗

NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis.Semantic proximity Read ↗

A tale of two PG systems: A comparison of the two most widely used continuous probabilistic genotyping systems in the United States.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Uncertainty in probabilistic genotyping of low template DNA: A case study comparing STRMix™ and TrueAllele™.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Internal Validation of MaSTR™ Probabilistic Genotyping Software for the Interpretation of 2-5 Person Mixed DNA Profiles.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Decreased accuracy of forensic DNA mixture analysis for groups with lower genetic diversitySemantic proximity Read ↗

The Probabilistic Genotyping Software STRmix: Utility and Evidence for its Validity.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Examining Discrimination Performance and Likelihood Ratio Values for Two Different Likelihood Ratio Systems Using the Provedit DatasetSemantic proximity Read ↗

A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Value of DNA mixture-to-mixture comparisons within an operational context.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation.Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.