Gittelson Simone, Moretti Tamyra R, Onorato Anthony J, Budowle Bruce, Weir Bruce S, Buckleton John
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8980 Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA.
DNA Support Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135, USA.
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017 May;28:178-187. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.02.007. Epub 2017 Feb 16.
An update was performed of the classic experiments that led to the view that profile probability assignments are usually within a factor of 10 of each other. The data used in this study consist of 15 Identifiler loci collected from a wide range of forensic populations. Following Budowle et al. [1], the terms cognate and non-cognate are used. The cognate database is the database from which the profiles are simulated. The profile probability assignment was usually larger in the cognate database. In 44%-65% of the cases, the profile probability for 15 loci in the non-cognate database was within a factor of 10 of the profile probability in the cognate database. This proportion was between 60% and 80% when the FBI and NIST data were used as the non-cognate databases. A second experiment compared the match probability assignment using a generalised database and recommendation 4.2 from NRC II (the 4.2 assignment) with a proxy for the matching proportion developed using subpopulation allele frequencies and the product rule. The findings support that the 4.2 assignment has a large conservative bias. These results are in agreement with previous research results.
profile概率赋值通常彼此相差不超过10倍。本研究中使用的数据包括从广泛的法医群体中收集的15个Identifiler基因座。按照Budowle等人[1]的说法,使用了同源和非同源这两个术语。同源数据库是从中模拟profile的数据库。在同源数据库中,profile概率赋值通常更大。在44% - 65%的情况下,非同源数据库中15个基因座的profile概率与同源数据库中的profile概率相差不超过10倍。当将联邦调查局(FBI)和美国国家标准与技术研究院(NIST)的数据用作非同源数据库时,这一比例在60%至80%之间。第二个实验比较了使用广义数据库的匹配概率赋值以及美国国家研究委员会第二版(NRC II)中的建议4.2(4.2赋值)与使用亚群体等位基因频率和乘积法则得出的匹配比例代理值。研究结果支持4.2赋值存在很大的保守偏差。这些结果与先前的研究结果一致。