Literature DB >> 30458020

Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting.

Harish Swaminathan1, Muhammad O Qureshi2, Catherine M Grgicak3,4, Ken Duffy5, Desmond S Lun2,4,6.   

Abstract

Continuous mixture interpretation methods that employ probabilistic genotyping to compute the Likelihood Ratio (LR) utilize more information than threshold-based systems. The continuous interpretation schemes described in the literature, however, do not all use the same underlying probabilistic model and standards outlining which probabilistic models may or may not be implemented into casework do not exist; thus, it is the individual forensic laboratory or expert that decides which model and corresponding software program to implement. For countries, such as the United States, with an adversarial legal system, one can envision a scenario where two probabilistic models are used to present the weight of evidence, and two LRs are presented by two experts. Conversely, if no independent review of the evidence is requested, one expert using one model may present one LR as there is no standard or guideline requiring the uncertainty in the LR estimate be presented. The choice of model determines the underlying probability calculation, and changes to it can result in non-negligible differences in the reported LR or corresponding verbal categorization presented to the trier-of-fact. In this paper, we study the impact of model differences on the LR and on the corresponding verbal expression computed using four variants of a continuous mixture interpretation method. The four models were tested five times each on 101, 1-, 2- and 3-person experimental samples with known contributors. For each sample, LRs were computed using the known contributor as the person of interest. In all four models, intra-model variability increased with an increase in the number of contributors and with a decrease in the contributor's template mass. Inter-model variability in the associated verbal expression of the LR was observed in 32 of the 195 LRs used for comparison. Moreover, in 11 of these profiles there was a change from LR > 1 to LR < 1. These results indicate that modifications to existing continuous models do have the potential to significantly impact the final statistic, justifying the continuation of broad-based, large-scale, independent studies to quantify the limits of reliability and variability of existing forensically relevant systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30458020      PMCID: PMC6245789          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207599

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  37 in total

1.  Investigation of reproducibility and error associated with qPCR methods using Quantifiler® Duo DNA quantification kit.

Authors:  Catherine M Grgicak; Zena M Urban; Robin W Cotton
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.832

2.  DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures.

Authors:  P Gill; C H Brenner; J S Buckleton; A Carracedo; M Krawczak; W R Mayr; N Morling; M Prinz; P M Schneider; B S Weir
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 2.395

3.  Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Sci Justice       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.124

4.  p-values should not be used for evaluating the strength of DNA evidence.

Authors:  Maarten Kruijver; Ronald Meester; Klaas Slooten
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 4.882

5.  Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: Benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings.

Authors:  Raymond Marquis; Alex Biedermann; Liv Cadola; Christophe Champod; Line Gueissaz; Geneviève Massonnet; Williams David Mazzella; Franco Taroni; Tacha Hicks
Journal:  Sci Justice       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 2.124

6.  A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios.

Authors:  P Gill; H Haned
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 4.882

7.  Exact computation of the distribution of likelihood ratios with forensic applications.

Authors:  Guro Dørum; Øyvind Bleka; Peter Gill; Hinda Haned; Lars Snipen; Solve Sæbø; Thore Egeland
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2013-12-09       Impact factor: 4.882

8.  CEESIt: A computational tool for the interpretation of STR mixtures.

Authors:  Harish Swaminathan; Abhishek Garg; Catherine M Grgicak; Muriel Medard; Desmond S Lun
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 4.882

9.  Production of high-fidelity electropherograms results in improved and consistent DNA interpretation: Standardizing the forensic validation process.

Authors:  Kelsey C Peters; Harish Swaminathan; Jennifer Sheehan; Ken R Duffy; Desmond S Lun; Catherine M Grgicak
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 4.882

10.  DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods.

Authors:  P Gill; L Gusmão; H Haned; W R Mayr; N Morling; W Parson; L Prieto; M Prinz; H Schneider; P M Schneider; B S Weir
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 4.882

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Interpol review of forensic biology and forensic DNA typing 2016-2019.

Authors:  John M Butler; Sheila Willis
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 2.  A Review of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems: EuroForMix, DNAStatistX and STRmix™.

Authors:  Peter Gill; Corina Benschop; John Buckleton; Øyvind Bleka; Duncan Taylor
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 4.096

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.