↓ Skip to main content

A method for quantifying differentiation between populations at multi-allelic loci and its implications for investigating identity and paternity

Overview of attention for article published in Genetica, June 1995
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 409)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
331 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
A method for quantifying differentiation between populations at multi-allelic loci and its implications for investigating identity and paternity
Published in
Genetica, June 1995
DOI 10.1007/bf01441146
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J. Balding, Richard A. Nichols

Abstract

A method is proposed for allowing for the effects of population differentiation, and other factors, in forensic inference based on DNA profiles. Much current forensic practice ignores, for example, the effects of coancestry and inappropriate databases and is consequently systematically biased against defendants. Problems with the 'product rule' for forensic identification have been highlighted by several authors, but important aspects of the problems are not widely appreciated. This arises in part because the match probability has often been confused with the relative frequency of the profile. Further, the analogous problems in paternity cases have received little attention. The proposed method is derived under general assumptions about the underlying population genetic processes. Probabilities relevant to forensic inference are expressed in terms of a single parameter whose values can be chosen to reflect the specific circumstances. The method is currently used in some UK courts and has important advantages over the 'Ceiling Principle' method, which has been criticized on a number of grounds.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 5%
United Kingdom 7 4%
Germany 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 175 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 25%
Student > Master 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 6%
Other 48 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 103 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 12%
Unspecified 17 9%
Computer Science 15 8%
Mathematics 9 5%
Other 30 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2016.
All research outputs
#1,419,505
of 8,487,569 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#35
of 409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,640
of 243,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,487,569 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 409 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.