在活动水平命题下报告生物学发现的价值:对已发表建议的讨论。

John Buckleton, Duncan Taylor, Paul Stafford Allen, James Curran, Tim Kalafut
{"title":"在活动水平命题下报告生物学发现的价值:对已发表建议的讨论。","authors":"John Buckleton, Duncan Taylor, Paul Stafford Allen, James Curran, Tim Kalafut","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.70112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluation of DNA given activity propositions (EGALP) is a widely discussed topic at this time, particularly in the United States. There is concern about opinions given in testimony that are not properly founded. Guidance on evaluative reporting given alleged activities can be found in published papers, official documents, and specialized textbooks. In this work, we aim to align and compare recommendations on evaluative reporting of DNA results. Some of these recommendations are explicitly stated while others are woven into the text. All documents pertain to evaluative reporting; they agree on the use of likelihood ratios and the need to avoid the transposed conditional. There is some disagreement such as whether a quantitative or qualitative LR should be reported. However, the majority situation is that one topic is covered explicitly by one document but only implicitly covered or not mentioned in the others. We identify 19 consensus recommendations and highlight five gaps or areas of disagreement for which we offer suggestions. It is our hope that this will encourage conversations that will lead to a more uniform set of guidelines, perhaps during a periodic updating of existing documents.</p>","PeriodicalId":94080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting the value of biological findings given activity level propositions: A discussion of published recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"John Buckleton, Duncan Taylor, Paul Stafford Allen, James Curran, Tim Kalafut\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.70112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Evaluation of DNA given activity propositions (EGALP) is a widely discussed topic at this time, particularly in the United States. There is concern about opinions given in testimony that are not properly founded. Guidance on evaluative reporting given alleged activities can be found in published papers, official documents, and specialized textbooks. In this work, we aim to align and compare recommendations on evaluative reporting of DNA results. Some of these recommendations are explicitly stated while others are woven into the text. All documents pertain to evaluative reporting; they agree on the use of likelihood ratios and the need to avoid the transposed conditional. There is some disagreement such as whether a quantitative or qualitative LR should be reported. However, the majority situation is that one topic is covered explicitly by one document but only implicitly covered or not mentioned in the others. We identify 19 consensus recommendations and highlight five gaps or areas of disagreement for which we offer suggestions. It is our hope that this will encourage conversations that will lead to a more uniform set of guidelines, perhaps during a periodic updating of existing documents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94080,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70112\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.70112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

DNA给定活性命题的评估(EGALP)是目前广泛讨论的话题,特别是在美国。有人担心证词中给出的意见没有适当的根据。在已发表的论文、官方文件和专门的教科书中都可以找到关于对指称活动进行评价报告的指导。在这项工作中,我们的目标是对齐和比较关于DNA结果评估报告的建议。其中一些建议是明确说明的,而另一些则是编进案文的。所有与评估报告有关的文件;他们同意使用似然比和需要避免转置的条件。存在一些分歧,例如应该报告定量的还是定性的LR。然而,大多数情况是,一个文档显式地介绍了一个主题,而在其他文档中只隐式地介绍或未提及。我们确定了19项共识建议,并强调了我们提出建议的5个差距或分歧领域。我们希望,这将鼓励可能在定期更新现有文件期间导致一套更统一的指导方针的对话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reporting the value of biological findings given activity level propositions: A discussion of published recommendations.

Evaluation of DNA given activity propositions (EGALP) is a widely discussed topic at this time, particularly in the United States. There is concern about opinions given in testimony that are not properly founded. Guidance on evaluative reporting given alleged activities can be found in published papers, official documents, and specialized textbooks. In this work, we aim to align and compare recommendations on evaluative reporting of DNA results. Some of these recommendations are explicitly stated while others are woven into the text. All documents pertain to evaluative reporting; they agree on the use of likelihood ratios and the need to avoid the transposed conditional. There is some disagreement such as whether a quantitative or qualitative LR should be reported. However, the majority situation is that one topic is covered explicitly by one document but only implicitly covered or not mentioned in the others. We identify 19 consensus recommendations and highlight five gaps or areas of disagreement for which we offer suggestions. It is our hope that this will encourage conversations that will lead to a more uniform set of guidelines, perhaps during a periodic updating of existing documents.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信