ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2026
Help v. harm: How a "lookup table" for evaluating DNA evidence given activity-level propositions could lead to wrongful convictions.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA testing methods have become incredibly sensitive. Many court stakeholders have accordingly shifted their focus from questions about "who is the source of the DNA?" to "how did the DNA get to be where it was found?" Given this shift, some in the forensic DNA community have urged courts in the United States to permit testimony interpreting DNA evidence given activity-level propositions (ALP). These advocates assert that ALP reporting and testimony will "help" courts answer the relevant questions in their cases. This assertion requires scrutiny. Examinations of wrongful convictions teach us that forensic experts can do irreparable harm when attempting to help courts answer difficult questions. The potential that ALP reporting and testimony will contribute to miscarriages of justice in U.S. courts must be considered. The commentary in this article critically assesses the claim that ALP reporting and testimony will help courts in the United States reach the correct outcome. We do so by analyzing an activity-level "lookup table" that was recently published by advocates of ALP reporting in a paper titled Interpreting DNA under fingernails given activity level propositions. Our analysis considers the potential that LRs reported in the lookup table will mislead end-users. We also consider the vulnerability of U.S. courts to wrongful convictions based on overstated forensic science testimony. Our analysis ultimately reveals that application of the lookup table to casework in the United States may not help end-users reach the correct outcome, and may, in fact, increase the risk of wrongful convictions.
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.