Search

The IPEFA model was developed for organizing online training and education events as applied by the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG). It consists of five phases: 1) Input, 2) Preparation, 3) Execution, 4) Feedback, and 5) Assessment. This document details these phases and shows IPEFA's first practical application to the 2023 edition of the virtual ISFG Summer School. Through sharing the experiences, we aim to provide transparency and engage with potential participants and teachers to (virtual) training and education events as organized by the ISFG. The model may also be useful for others organizing (online) events. We have experienced that evaluation of events with input and feedback from both the (potential) participants and teachers is essential for successful training and education. This takes time which is limited in everyone's busy agenda's and may therefore not always be performed with the care it requires. Since these aspects are crucial, however, we aim to keep following the principles as outlined in the IPEFA model., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest We have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) has developed a set of nomenclature recommendations for short tandem repeat (STR) sequences. These recommendations follow the 2016 considerations of the DNA Commission of the ISFG, incorporating the knowledge gained through research and population studies in the intervening years. While maintaining a focus on backward compatibility with the CE data that currently populate national DNA databases, this report also looks to the future with the establishment of recommended minimum sequence reporting ranges to facilitate interlaboratory comparisons, automated solutions for sequence-based allele designations, a suite of resources to support bioinformatic development, guidance for characterizing new STR loci, and considerations for incorporating STR sequences and other new markers into investigative databases., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Bruce Budowle: Currently Consultant with Verogen., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The importance of DNA evidence for gaining investigative leads demands a fast workflow for forensic DNA profiling performed in large volumes. Therefore, we developed software solutions for automated DNA profile analysis, contamination check, major donor inference, DNA database (DDB) comparison and reporting of the conclusions. This represents the Fast DNA IDentification Line (FIDL) and this study describes its development, validation and implementation in criminal casework at the authors' institute. This first implementation regards single donor profiles and major contributors to mixtures. The validation included testing of the software components on their own and examination of the performance of different DDB search strategies. Furthermore, end-to-end testing was performed under three conditions: (1) testing of scenarios that can occur in DNA casework practice, (2) tests using three months of previous casework data, and (3) testing in a casework production environment in parallel to standard casework practices. The same DNA database candidates were retrieved by this automated line as by the manual workflow. The data flow was correct, results were reproducible and robust, results requiring manual analysis were correctly flagged, and reported results were as expected. Overall, we found FIDL valid for use in casework practice in our institute. The results from FIDL are automatically reported within three working days from receiving the trace sample. This includes the time needed for registration of the case, DNA extraction, quantification, polymerase chain reaction and capillary electrophoresis. FIDL itself takes less than two hours from intake of the raw CE data to reporting. Reported conclusions are one of five options: (1) candidate retrieved from DDB, (2) no candidate retrieved from DDB, (3) high evidential value with regards to reference within the case, (4) results require examination of expert, or (5) insufficient amount of DNA obtained to generate a DNA profile. In our current process, the automated report is sent within three working days and a complete report, with confirmation of the FIDL results, and signed by a reporting officer is sent at a later time. The signed report may include additional analyses regarding e.g. minor contributors. The automated report with first case results is quickly available to the police enabling them to act upon the DNA results prior to receiving the full DNA report. This line enables a uniform and efficient manner of handling large numbers of traces and cases and provides high value investigative leads in the early stages of the investigation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Machine learning obtains good accuracy in determining the number of contributors (NOC) in short tandem repeat (STR) mixture DNA profiles. However, the models used so far are not understandable to users as they only output a prediction without any reasoning for that conclusion. Therefore, we leverage techniques from the field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to help users understand why specific predictions are made. Where previous attempts at explainability for NOC estimation have relied upon using simpler, more understandable models that achieve lower accuracy, we use techniques that can be applied to any machine learning model. Our explanations incorporate SHAP values and counterfactual examples for each prediction into a single visualization. Existing methods for generating counterfactuals focus on uncorrelated features. This makes them inappropriate for the highly correlated features derived from STR data for NOC estimation, as these techniques simulate combinations of features that could not have resulted from an STR profile. For this reason, we have constructed a new counterfactual method, Realistic Counterfactuals (ReCo), which generates realistic counterfactual explanations for correlated data. We show that ReCo outperforms state-of-the-art methods on traditional metrics, as well as on a novel realism score. A user evaluation of the visualization shows positive opinions of end-users, which is ultimately the most appropriate metric in assessing explanations for real-world settings., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The interpretation of short tandem repeat (STR) profiles can be challenging when, for example, alleles are masked due to allele sharing among contributors and/or when they are subject to drop-out, for instance from sample degradation. Mixture interpretation can be improved by increasing the number of STRs and/or loci with a higher discriminatory power. Both capillary electrophoresis (CE, 6-dye) and massively parallel sequencing (MPS) provide a platform for analysing relatively large numbers of autosomal STRs. In addition, MPS enables distinguishing between sequence variants, resulting in enlarged discriminatory power. Also, MPS allows for small amplicon sizes for all loci as spacing is not an issue, which is beneficial with degraded DNA. Altogether, MPS has the potential to increase the weights of evidence for true contributors to (complex) DNA profiles. In this study, likelihood ratio (LR) calculations were performed using STR profiles obtained with two different MPS systems and analysed using different settings: 1) MPS PowerSeq™ Auto System profiles analysed using FDSTools equipped with optimized settings such as noise correction, 2) ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep Kit profiles analysed using the default settings in the Universal Analysis Software (UAS), and 3) ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep Kit profiles analysed using FDSTools empirically adapted to cope with one-directional reads and provisional, basic settings. The LR calculations used genotyping data for two- to four-person mixtures varying for mixture proportion, level of drop-out and allele sharing and were generated with the continuous model EuroForMix. The LR results for the over 2000 sets of propositions were affected by the variation for the number of markers and analysis settings used in the three approaches. Nevertheless, trends for true and non-contributors, effects of replicates, assigned number of contributors, and model validation results were comparable for the three MPS approaches and alike the trends known for CE data. Based on this analogy, we regard the probabilistic interpretation of MPS STR data fit for forensic DNA casework. In addition, guidelines were derived on when to apply LR calculations to MPS autosomal STR data and report the corresponding results., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This study describes a multi-laboratory validation of DNAxs, a DNA eXpert System for the data management and probabilistic interpretation of DNA profiles [1], and its statistical library DNAStatistX to which, besides the organising laboratory, four laboratories participated. The software was modified to read multiple data formats and the study was performed prior to the release of the software to the forensic community. The first exercise explored all main functionalities of DNAxs with feedback on user-friendliness, installation and general performance. Next, every laboratory performed likelihood ratio (LR) calculations using their own dataset and a dataset provided by the organising laboratory. The organising laboratory performed LR calculations using all datasets. The datasets were generated with different STR typing kits or analysis systems and consisted of samples varying in DNA amounts, mixture ratios, number of contributors and drop-out level. Hypothesis sets had the correct, under- and over-assigned number of contributors and true and false donors as person of interest. When comparing the results between laboratories, the LRs were foremost within one unit on log10 scale. The few LR results that deviated more had differences for the parameters estimated by the optimizer within DNAStatistX. Some of these were indicated by failed iteration results, others by a failed model validation, since unrealistic hypotheses were included. When these results that do not meet the quality criteria were excluded, as is in accordance with interpretation guidelines, none of the analyses in the different laboratories yielded a different statement in the casework report. Nonetheless, changes in software parameters were sought that minimized differences in outcomes, which made the DNAStatistX module more robust. Overall, the software was found intuitive, user-friendly and valid for use in multiple laboratories., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The number of contributors (NOC) to (complex) autosomal STR profiles cannot be determined with absolute certainty due to complicating factors such as allele sharing and allelic drop-out. The precision of NOC estimations can be improved by increasing the number of (highly polymorphic) markers, the use of massively parallel sequencing instead of capillary electrophoresis, and/or using more profile information than only the allele counts. In this study, we focussed on machine learning approaches in order to make maximum use of the profile information. To this end, a set of 590 PowerPlex® Fusion 6C profiles with one up to five contributors were generated from a total of 1174 different donors. This set varied for the template amount of DNA, mixture proportion, levels of allele sharing, allelic drop-out and degradation. The dataset contained labels with known NOC and was split into a training, test and hold-out set. The training set was used to optimize ten different algorithms with selection of profile characteristics. Per profile, over 250 characteristics, denoted 'features', were calculated. These features were based on allele counts, peak heights and allele frequencies. The features that were most related to the NOC were selected based on partial correlation using the training set. Next, the performance of each model (=combination of features plus algorithm) was examined using the test set. A random forest classifier with 19 features, denoted the 'RFC19-model' showed best performance and was selected for further validation. Results showed improved accuracy compared to the conventional maximum allele count approach and an in-house nC-tool based on the total allele count. The method is extremely fast and regarded useful for application in forensic casework., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Continuous probabilistic genotyping software enables the interpretation of highly complex DNA profiles that are prone to stochastic effects and/or consist of multiple contributions. The process of introducing probabilistic genotyping into an accredited forensic laboratory requires testing, validation, documentation and training. Documents that include guidelines and/or requirements have been published in order to guide forensic laboratories through this extensive process and there has been encouragements to share the results obtained from internal laboratory studies. To this end, we present the results obtained from the quantitative probabilistic genotyping system EuroForMix applied to mixed DNA profiles with known contributions mixed in known proportions, levels of allele sharing and levels of allelic drop-out. The mixtures were profiled using the PowerPlex® Fusion 6C (PPF6C) kit. Using these mixtures, 427 Hp-true tests and 408 Hd-true tests were performed. In the Hd-true tests, non-contributors were selected deliberately to a have large overlap with the alleles within the mixture and worst-case scenarios were examined in which a simulated relative of one of the true donors was considered as the person of interest under the prosecution hypothesis. The effects of selecting different EuroForMix modelling options, the use of PCR replicates, allelic drop-out, and varying the assigned number of contributors were examined. Instances of Type I and Type II errors are discussed. In addition 330 likelihood ratio results from EuroForMix are compared to the semi-continuous model LRmix Studio. Results demonstrate the performance and trends of EuroForMix when applied to PPF6C profiles., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The data management, interpretation and comparison of sets of DNA profiles can be complex, time-consuming and error-prone when performed manually. This, combined with the growing numbers of genetic markers in forensic identification systems calls for expert systems that can automatically compare genotyping results within (large) sets of DNA profiles and assist in profile interpretation. To that aim, we developed a user-friendly software program or DNA eXpert System that is denoted DNAxs. This software includes features to view, infer and match autosomal short tandem repeat profiles with connectivity to up and downstream software programs. Furthermore, DNAxs has imbedded the 'DNAStatistX' module, a statistical library that contains a probabilistic algorithm to calculate likelihood ratios (LRs). This algorithm is largely based on the source code of the quantitative probabilistic genotyping system EuroForMix [1]. The statistical library, DNAStatistX, supports parallel computing which can be delegated to a computer cluster and enables automated queuing of requested LR calculations. DNAStatistX is written in Java and is accessible separately or via DNAxs. Using true and non-contributors to DNA profiles with up to four contributors, the DNAStatistX accuracy and precision were assessed by comparing the DNAStatistX results to those of EuroForMix. Results were the same up to rare differences that could be attributed to the different optimizers used in both software programs. Implementation of dye specific detection thresholds resulted in larger likelihood values and thus a better explanation of the data used in this study. Furthermore, processing time, robustness of DNAStatistX results and the circumstances under which model validations failed were examined. Finally, guidelines for application of the software are shared as an example. The DNAxs software is future-proof as it applies a modular approach by which novel functionalities can be incorporated., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Advances in autosomal DNA profiling systems enable analyzing increased numbers of short tandem repeat (STR) loci in one reaction. Increasing the number of STR loci increases the amount of information that may be obtained from a (crime scene) sample. In this study, we examined whether even more allelic information can be obtained by applying low-template methods. To this aim, the performance of the PowerPlex® Fusion 6C STR typing system was assessed when increasing the number of PCR cycles or enhancing the capillary electrophoresis (CE) injection settings. Results show that applying these low-template methods yields limited extra information and comes at cost of more background noise. In addition, the gain in detection of alleles was much smaller when compared to the gain when applying low-template methods to the 15-loci AmpFLSTR® NGM™ system. Consequently, the PowerPlex® Fusion 6C STR typing system was implemented using standard settings only; low-template methods were not implemented for our routine forensic casework., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Searching a national DNA database with complex and incomplete profiles usually yields very large numbers of possible matches that can present many candidate suspects to be further investigated by the forensic scientist and/or police. Current practice in most forensic laboratories consists of ordering these 'hits' based on the number of matching alleles with the searched profile. Thus, candidate profiles that share the same number of matching alleles are not differentiated and due to the lack of other ranking criteria for the candidate list it may be difficult to discern a true match from the false positives or notice that all candidates are in fact false positives. SmartRank was developed to put forward only relevant candidates and rank them accordingly. The SmartRank software computes a likelihood ratio (LR) for the searched profile and each profile in the DNA database and ranks database entries above a defined LR threshold according to the calculated LR. In this study, we examined for mixed DNA profiles of variable complexity whether the true donors are retrieved, what the number of false positives above an LR threshold is and the ranking position of the true donors. Using 343 mixed DNA profiles over 750 SmartRank searches were performed. In addition, the performance of SmartRank and CODIS were compared regarding DNA database searches and SmartRank was found complementary to CODIS. We also describe the applicable domain of SmartRank and provide guidelines. The SmartRank software is open-source and freely available. Using the best practice guidelines, SmartRank enables obtaining investigative leads in criminal cases lacking a suspect., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The interpretation of complex DNA profiles may differ between laboratories and reporting officers, which can lead to discrepancies in the final reports. In this study, we assessed the intra and inter laboratory variation in DNA mixture interpretation for three European ISO17025-accredited laboratories. To this aim, 26 reporting officers analyzed five sets of DNA profiles. Three main aspects were considered: 1) whether the mixed DNA profiles met the criteria for comparison to a reference profile, 2) the actual result of the comparison between references and DNA profiling data and 3) whether the weight of the DNA evidence could be assessed. Similarity in answers depended mostly on the complexity of the tasks. This study showed less variation within laboratories than between laboratories which could be the result of differences between internal laboratory guidelines and methods and tools available. Results show the profile types for which the three laboratories report differently, which informs indirectly on the complexity threshold the laboratories employ. Largest differences between laboratories were caused by the methods available to assess the weight of the DNA evidence. This exercise aids in training forensic scientists, refining laboratory guidelines and explaining differences between laboratories in court. Undertaking more collaborative exercises in future may stimulate dialog and consensus regarding interpretation. For training purposes, DNA profiles of the mixed stains and questioned references are made available., (Copyright © 2016 The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The investigation of the performance of models to interpret complex DNA profiles is best undertaken using real DNA profiles. Here we used a data set to reflect the variety typically encountered in real casework. The "crime-stains" were constructed from known individuals and comprised a total of 59 diverse samples: pristine DNA/DNA extracted from blood, 2-3 person mixtures, degradation/no-degradation, differences in allele sharing, dropout/no dropout, etc. Two siblings were also included in the test-set in order to challenge the systems. Two kinds of analyses were performed, namely tests on whether a person of interest is a contributor based on weight-of-evidence (likelihood ratio) calculations, and deconvolution test to estimate the profile of unknown constituent parts. The weight-of-evidence analyses compared LRmix Studio with EuroForMix including exploration of the effect of applying an ad hoc stutter-filter. For the deconvolution analysis we compared EuroForMix with LoCIM-tool. When we classified persons of interests into being true contributors or non-contributors, we found that EuroForMix, overall, returned a higher true positive rate for the same false positive levels compared to LRmix. In particular, in cases with an unknown major component, EuroForMix was more discriminating for mixtures where the person of interest was a minor contributor. Comparing deconvolution of major contributors we found that EuroForMix overall performed better than LoCIM-tool., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Interpretation of DNA mixtures with three or more contributors, defined here as high order mixtures, is difficult because of the inevitability of allele sharing. Allele sharing complicates the estimation of the number of contributors, which is an important parameter to assess the probative value. Consequently, these mixtures may not be deemed suitable for interpretation and reporting. In this study, we generated three-, four- and five-person mixtures with little or no drop-out and with varying levels of allele sharing. For these DNA mixtures we computed likelihood ratios (LRs) using the LRmix model, and always using persons of interest that are true contributors. We assessed the influence of different scenarios on the LR, and used (1) the true or an incorrect number of contributors, (2) zero, one or two anchored individuals and (3) an equal number of contributors under Hp and Hd or an extra contributor under Hd. It was shown that the LR varied considerably when the hypotheses used an incorrect number of contributors, especially when individuals were anchored under the hypotheses. Overall, when analysing high order mixtures, there may occur a transition from LR greater than one to less than one if an incorrect number of contributors is conditioned. This is a result of allele sharing among the multiple contributors rather than allele drop-out, since this study only utilised samples with little or no drop-out., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The interpretation of mixed DNA profiles obtained from low template DNA samples has proven to be a particularly difficult task in forensic casework. Newly developed likelihood ratio (LR) models that account for PCR-related stochastic effects, such as allelic drop-out, drop-in and stutters, have enabled the analysis of complex cases that would otherwise have been reported as inconclusive. In such samples, there are uncertainties about the number of contributors, and the correct sets of propositions to consider. Using experimental samples, where the genotypes of the donors are known, we evaluated the feasibility and the relevance of the interpretation of high order mixtures, of three, four and five donors. The relative risks of analyzing high order mixtures of three, four, and five donors, were established by comparison of a 'gold standard' LR, to the LR that would be obtained in casework. The 'gold standard' LR is the ideal LR: since the genotypes and number of contributors are known, it follows that the parameters needed to compute the LR can be determined per contributor. The 'casework LR' was calculated as used in standard practice, where unknown donors are assumed; the parameters were estimated from the available data. Both LRs were calculated using the basic standard model, also termed the drop-out/drop-in model, implemented in the LRmix module of the R package Forensim. We show how our results furthered the understanding of the relevance of analyzing high order mixtures in a forensic context. Limitations are highlighted, and it is illustrated how our study serves as a guide to implement likelihood ratio interpretation of complex DNA profiles in forensic casework., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)