Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validating TrueAllele® DNA Mixture Interpretation*,†

Open access
Perlin, Mark W., Legler, Matthew M., Spencer, Cara E., Smith, Jessica L., Allan, William P., Belrose, Jamie L., Duceman, Barry W.·2011·Journal of Forensic Sciences

Abstract

Abstract: DNA mixtures with two or more contributors are a prevalent form of biological evidence. Mixture interpretation is complicated by the possibility of different genotype combinations that can explain the short tandem repeat (STR) data. Current human review simplifies this interpretation by applying thresholds to qualitatively treat STR data peaks as all‐or‐none events and assigning allele pairs equal likelihood. Computer review, however, can work instead with all the quantitative data to preserve more identification information. The present study examined the extent to which quantitative computer interpretation could elicit more identification information than human review from the same adjudicated two‐person mixture data. The base 10 logarithm of a DNA match statistic is a standard information measure that permits such a comparison. On eight mixtures having two unknown contributors, we found that quantitative computer interpretation gave an average information increase of 6.24 log units (min = 2.32, max = 10.49) over qualitative human review. On eight other mixtures with a known victim reference and one unknown contributor, quantitative interpretation averaged a 4.67 log factor increase (min = 1.00, max = 11.31) over qualitative review. This study provides a general treatment of DNA interpretation methods (including mixtures) that encompasses both quantitative and qualitative review. Validation methods are introduced that can assess the efficacy and reproducibility of any DNA interpretation method. An in‐depth case example highlights 10 reasons (at 10 different loci) why quantitative probability modeling preserves more identification information than qualitative threshold methods. The results validate TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation and establish a significant information improvement over human review.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01859.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Perlin, M. W., Legler, M. M., Spencer, C. E., Smith, J. L., Allan, W. P., Belrose, J. L., & Duceman, B. W.
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-09
Volume
56
Issue
6
Pages
1430-1447
ISSN
  • 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-4029
OpenAlex
W3124381111
Cited by
227
References
3
FWCI
10.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validating TrueAllele® DNA Mixture Interpretation*,†. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01859.x
The paper
Perlin, M. W., Legler, M. M., Spencer, C. E., Smith, J. L., Allan, W. P., Belrose, J. L., & Duceman, B. W. (2011). Validating TrueAllele® DNA Mixture Interpretation*,†. Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01859.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.