Publications -- Michael Coble

Permanent URI for this collection

This collection is limited to articles published under the terms of a creative commons license or other open access publishing agreement since 2016. It is not intended as a complete list of the author's works.


Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item
    Study of CTS DNA Proficiency Tests with Regard to DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review
    (MDPI, 2022-11-25) Bille, Todd; Coble, Michael D.; Kalafut, Tim; Buckleton, John
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a document entitled DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review for public comment. This has become known as the Draft NIST Foundation Review. It contains the statement: "Across these 69 data sets, there were 80 false negatives and 18 false positives reported from 110,408 possible responses (27,602 participants x two evidence items x two reference items). In the past five years, the number of participants using PGS has grown." We examine a set of proficiency test results to determine if these NIST statements could be justified. The summary reports for each relevant forensic biology test (Forensic Biology, Semen, and Mixture) in the years 2018-2021 were reviewed. Data were also provided to us by CTS upon our request. None of the false positives or negatives could be attributed to the mixture interpretation strategy and certainly not to the use of PGS.
  • Item
    Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion
    (BioMed Central Ltd., 2016-08-31) Bieber, Frederick R.; Buckleton, John S.; Budowle, Bruce; Butler, John M.; Coble, Michael D.
    BACKGROUND: The evaluation and interpretation of forensic DNA mixture evidence faces greater interpretational challenges due to increasingly complex mixture evidence. Such challenges include: casework involving low quantity or degraded evidence leading to allele and locus dropout; allele sharing of contributors leading to allele stacking; and differentiation of PCR stutter artifacts from true alleles. There is variation in statistical approaches used to evaluate the strength of the evidence when inclusion of a specific known individual(s) is determined, and the approaches used must be supportable. There are concerns that methods utilized for interpretation of complex forensic DNA mixtures may not be implemented properly in some casework. Similar questions are being raised in a number of U.S. jurisdictions, leading to some confusion about mixture interpretation for current and previous casework. RESULTS: Key elements necessary for the interpretation and statistical evaluation of forensic DNA mixtures are described. Given the most common method for statistical evaluation of DNA mixtures in many parts of the world, including the USA, is the Combined Probability of Inclusion/Exclusion (CPI/CPE). Exposition and elucidation of this method and a protocol for use is the focus of this article. Formulae and other supporting materials are provided. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance and details of a DNA mixture interpretation protocol is provided for application of the CPI/CPE method in the analysis of more complex forensic DNA mixtures. This description, in turn, should help reduce the variability of interpretation with application of this methodology and thereby improve the quality of DNA mixture interpretation throughout the forensic community.