扩展关于法医决定和结果不一致的讨论。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL Journal of forensic sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-09 DOI:10.1111/1556-4029.15558
John Buckleton DSc, Jo-Anne Bright PhD, Duncan Taylor PhD, James Curran PhD, Tim Kalafut PhD
{"title":"扩展关于法医决定和结果不一致的讨论。","authors":"John Buckleton DSc,&nbsp;Jo-Anne Bright PhD,&nbsp;Duncan Taylor PhD,&nbsp;James Curran PhD,&nbsp;Tim Kalafut PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 on a case-by-case basis, some due to laboratory policy and would hence differ between laboratories, and the final and smallest part was the run-to-run difference caused by the Monte Carlo aspect of the software used. However, the net variation in LRs was considerable. We believe that most laboratories will self-diagnose the cause of their difference from the majority answer and in some, but not all instances will take corrective action. An inter-laboratory exercise consisting of raw data files for relatively straightforward mixtures, such as two mixtures of three or four persons, would allow laboratories to calibrate their procedures and findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"69 4","pages":"1125-1137"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extending the discussion on inconsistency in forensic decisions and results\",\"authors\":\"John Buckleton DSc,&nbsp;Jo-Anne Bright PhD,&nbsp;Duncan Taylor PhD,&nbsp;James Curran PhD,&nbsp;Tim Kalafut PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.15558\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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 on a case-by-case basis, some due to laboratory policy and would hence differ between laboratories, and the final and smallest part was the run-to-run difference caused by the Monte Carlo aspect of the software used. However, the net variation in LRs was considerable. We believe that most laboratories will self-diagnose the cause of their difference from the majority answer and in some, but not all instances will take corrective action. An inter-laboratory exercise consisting of raw data files for relatively straightforward mixtures, such as two mixtures of three or four persons, would allow laboratories to calibrate their procedures and findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\"69 4\",\"pages\":\"1125-1137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15558\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15558","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,Itiel Dror 在一篇评论中提出了实验室间和实验室内不一致性的问题。我们重访了本次讨论的一些作者曾参与的一项实验室间试验,以诊断使用概率基因分型软件分配的似然比(LRs)存在差异的原因。其中有些差异是由于逐例做出的不同决定造成的,有些差异是由于实验室政策造成的,因此不同实验室之间会有差异,最后也是最小的一部分差异是由于所使用软件的蒙特卡罗特性造成的运行间差异。不过,LRs 的净差异还是相当大的。我们相信,大多数实验室会自我诊断出与大多数答案不同的原因,并在某些情况下(但并非所有情况下)采取纠正措施。实验室间活动包括相对简单的混合物(如三或四人的两个混合物)的原始数据文件,这将使实验室能够校准其程序和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Extending the discussion on inconsistency in forensic decisions and results

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 on a case-by-case basis, some due to laboratory policy and would hence differ between laboratories, and the final and smallest part was the run-to-run difference caused by the Monte Carlo aspect of the software used. However, the net variation in LRs was considerable. We believe that most laboratories will self-diagnose the cause of their difference from the majority answer and in some, but not all instances will take corrective action. An inter-laboratory exercise consisting of raw data files for relatively straightforward mixtures, such as two mixtures of three or four persons, would allow laboratories to calibrate their procedures and findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of forensic sciences
Journal of forensic sciences 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A preliminary study of the manufacturing of breech faces The application of GIS technology in building a multivariate taphonomic profile for improving PMI estimations in Greece Determining the sequence of intersecting lines formed by laser printer toner and seal ink based on confocal Raman spectroscopy Barbie drug identification: Not a child's play
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1