Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Incorrect statistical reasoning in Guyll et al. leads to biased claims about strength of forensic evidence.
Authors: Rosenblum M; Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205., Chin ET; Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205., Ogburn EL; Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205., Nishimura A; Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205., Westreich D; Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599., Datta A; Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205., Vanderplas S; Department of Statistics, University of Nebraska Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583., Cuellar M; Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.; Department of Statistics and Data Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104., Thompson WC; Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697.
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A] 2024 Nov 05; Vol. 121 (45), pp. e2315431121. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Oct 28.
Publication Type: Letter
Journal Info: Publisher: National Academy of Sciences Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 7505876 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1091-6490 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00278424 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Subsets: MEDLINE; In Process
Database: MEDLINE Ultimate
Description
ISSN:1091-6490
DOI:10.1073/pnas.2315431121