ArticleForensic science international2018
A response to "Likelihood ratio as weight of evidence: A closer look" by Lund and Iyer.
Article in Forensic science international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bayesian network approach to evaluating footwear evidence.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Nothing new under the sun: The NIST primer on "Probability and Likelihood Ratios" gives a misleading negative portrayal of the likelihood-ratio framework.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Measuring evidential phenomena for complex reasoning patterns about a mass of evidence.Artificial intelligence and law · 2026Article
- Research on likelihood ratio evaluation method of fingerprint evidence based on parameter estimation method.Forensic sciences research · 2024Article
- The strange persistence of (source) "identification" claims in forensic literature through descriptivism, diagnosticism and machinism.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2022Article
- Interpol review of glass and paint evidence 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- Digital evidence exceptionalism? A review and discussion of conceptual hurdles in digital evidence transformation.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Article
- Juror comprehension of forensic expert testimony: A literature review and gap analysis.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, Lund and Iyer (L&I) raised an argument regarding the use of likelihood ratios in court. In our view, their argument is based on a lack of understanding of the paradigm. L&I argue that the decision maker should not accept the expert's likelihood ratio without further consideration. This is agreed by all parties. In normal practice, there is often considerable and proper exploration in court of the basis for any probabilistic statement. We conclude that L&I argue against a practice that does not exist and which no one advocates. Further we conclude that the most informative summary of evidential weight is the likelihood ratio. We state that this is the summary that should be presented to a court in every scientific assessment of evidential weight with supporting information about how it was constructed and on what it was based.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.