Cargando…

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

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 mode...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Swaminathan, Harish, Qureshi, Muhammad O., Grgicak, Catherine M., Duffy, Ken, Lun, Desmond S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30458020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207599
_version_ 1783372309940142080
author Swaminathan, Harish
Qureshi, Muhammad O.
Grgicak, Catherine M.
Duffy, Ken
Lun, Desmond S.
author_facet Swaminathan, Harish
Qureshi, Muhammad O.
Grgicak, Catherine M.
Duffy, Ken
Lun, Desmond S.
author_sort Swaminathan, Harish
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6245789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62457892018-11-30 Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting Swaminathan, Harish Qureshi, Muhammad O. Grgicak, Catherine M. Duffy, Ken Lun, Desmond S. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2018-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6245789/ /pubmed/30458020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207599 Text en © 2018 Swaminathan et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Swaminathan, Harish
Qureshi, Muhammad O.
Grgicak, Catherine M.
Duffy, Ken
Lun, Desmond S.
Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting
title Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting
title_full Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting
title_fullStr Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting
title_full_unstemmed Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting
title_short Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting
title_sort four model variants within a continuous forensic dna mixture interpretation framework: effects on evidential inference and reporting
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30458020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207599
work_keys_str_mv AT swaminathanharish fourmodelvariantswithinacontinuousforensicdnamixtureinterpretationframeworkeffectsonevidentialinferenceandreporting
AT qureshimuhammado fourmodelvariantswithinacontinuousforensicdnamixtureinterpretationframeworkeffectsonevidentialinferenceandreporting
AT grgicakcatherinem fourmodelvariantswithinacontinuousforensicdnamixtureinterpretationframeworkeffectsonevidentialinferenceandreporting
AT duffyken fourmodelvariantswithinacontinuousforensicdnamixtureinterpretationframeworkeffectsonevidentialinferenceandreporting
AT lundesmonds fourmodelvariantswithinacontinuousforensicdnamixtureinterpretationframeworkeffectsonevidentialinferenceandreporting