IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0092837.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

TrueAllele Casework on Virginia DNA Mixture Evidence: Computer and Manual Interpretation in 72 Reported Criminal Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Mark W Perlin
  • Kiersten Dormer
  • Jennifer Hornyak
  • Lisa Schiermeier-Wood
  • Susan Greenspoon

Abstract

Mixtures are a commonly encountered form of biological evidence that contain DNA from two or more contributors. Laboratory analysis of mixtures produces data signals that usually cannot be separated into distinct contributor genotypes. Computer modeling can resolve the genotypes up to probability, reflecting the uncertainty inherent in the data. Human analysts address the problem by simplifying the quantitative data in a threshold process that discards considerable identification information. Elevated stochastic threshold levels potentially discard more information. This study examines three different mixture interpretation methods. In 72 criminal cases, 111 genotype comparisons were made between 92 mixture items and relevant reference samples. TrueAllele computer modeling was done on all the evidence samples, and documented in DNA match reports that were provided as evidence for each case. Threshold-based Combined Probability of Inclusion (CPI) and stochastically modified CPI (mCPI) analyses were performed as well. TrueAllele’s identification information in 101 positive matches was used to assess the reliability of its modeling approach. Comparison was made with 81 CPI and 53 mCPI DNA match statistics that were manually derived from the same data. There were statistically significant differences between the DNA interpretation methods. TrueAllele gave an average match statistic of 113 billion, CPI averaged 6.68 million, and mCPI averaged 140. The computer was highly specific, with a false positive rate under 0.005%. The modeling approach was precise, having a factor of two within-group standard deviation. TrueAllele accuracy was indicated by having uniformly distributed match statistics over the data set. The computer could make genotype comparisons that were impossible or impractical using manual methods. TrueAllele computer interpretation of DNA mixture evidence is sensitive, specific, precise, accurate and more informative than manual interpretation alternatives. It can determine DNA match statistics when threshold-based methods cannot. Improved forensic science computation can affect criminal cases by providing reliable scientific evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark W Perlin & Kiersten Dormer & Jennifer Hornyak & Lisa Schiermeier-Wood & Susan Greenspoon, 2014. "TrueAllele Casework on Virginia DNA Mixture Evidence: Computer and Manual Interpretation in 72 Reported Criminal Cases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-15, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0092837
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092837
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092837
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0092837&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0092837?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0092837. 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.