Multi-laboratory validation of DNAxs including the statistical library DNAStatistX

An overview of log likelihood ratio cost in forensic science - Where is it used and what values can we expect?

There is increasing support for reporting evidential strength as a likelihood ratio (LR) and increasing interest in (semi-)automated LR systems. The log-likelihood ratio cost (Cllr) is a popular metric for such systems, penalizing misleading LRs further from 1 more. Cllr = 0 indicates perfection while Cllr = 1 indicates an uninformative system. However, beyond this, what constitutes a "good" Cllr is unclear. Aiming to provide handles on when a Cllr is "good", we studied 136 publications on (semi-)automated LR systems. Results show Cllr use heavily depends on the field, e.g., being absent in DNA analysis. Despite more publications on automated LR systems over time, the proportion reporting Cllr remains stable. Noticeably, Cllr values lack clear patterns and depend on the area, analysis and dataset. As LR systems become more prevalent, comparing them becomes crucial. This is hampered by different studies using different datasets. We advocate using public benchmark datasets to advance the field.

Comparison of genotyping and weight of evidence results when applying different genotyping strategies on samples from a DNA transfer experiment

In this study, we assessed to what extent data on the subject of TPPR (transfer, persistence, prevalence, recovery) that are obtained through an older STR typing kit can be used in an activity-level evaluation for a case profiled with a more modern STR kit. Newer kits generally hold more loci and may show higher sensitivity especially when reduced reaction volumes are used, and this could increase the evidential value at the source level. On the other hand, the increased genotyping information may invoke a higher number of contributors in the weight of evidence calculations, which could affect the evidential values as well. An activity scenario well explored in earlier studies [1,2] was redone using volunteers with known DNA profiles. DNA extracts were analyzed with three different approaches, namely using the optimal DNA input for (1) an older and (2) a newer STR typing system, and (3) using a standard, volume-based input combined with replicate PCR analysis with only the newer STR kit. The genotyping results were analyzed for various aspects such as percentage detected alleles and relative peak height contribution for background and the contributors known to be involved in the activity. Next, source-level LRs were calculated and the same trends were observed with regard to inclusionary and exclusionary LRs for persons who had or had not been in direct contact with the sampled areas. We subsequently assessed the impact on the outcome of the activity-level evaluation in an exemplary case by applying the assigned probabilities to a Bayesian network. We infer that data from different STR kits can be combined in the activity-level evaluations.

A Review of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems: EuroForMix, DNAStatistX and STRmix™

Probabilistic genotyping has become widespread. EuroForMix and DNAStatistX are both based upon maximum likelihood estimation using a γ model, whereas STRmix™ is a Bayesian approach that specifies prior distributions on the unknown model parameters. A general overview is provided of the historical development of probabilistic genotyping. Some general principles of interpretation are described, including: the application to investigative vs. evaluative reporting; detection of contamination events; inter and intra laboratory studies; numbers of contributors; proposition setting and validation of software and its performance. This is followed by details of the evolution, utility, practice and adoption of the software discussed.