IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207599.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Harish Swaminathan
  • Muhammad O Qureshi
  • Catherine M Grgicak
  • Ken Duffy
  • Desmond S Lun

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

Suggested Citation

  • Harish Swaminathan & Muhammad O Qureshi & Catherine M Grgicak & Ken Duffy & Desmond S Lun, 2018. "Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-23, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207599
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207599
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207599&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207599?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Riman & Hari Iyer & Peter M Vallone, 2021. "Examining performance and likelihood ratios for two likelihood ratio systems using the PROVEDIt dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-30, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207599. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.