Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 128, Issue 3, pp 415–425 | Cite as

Exclusion probabilities and likelihood ratios with applications to kinship problems

  • Klaas-Jan Slooten
  • Thore Egeland
Original Article

Abstract

In forensic genetics, DNA profiles are compared in order to make inferences, paternity cases being a standard example. The statistical evidence can be summarized and reported in several ways. For example, in a paternity case, the likelihood ratio (LR) and the probability of not excluding a random man as father (RMNE) are two common summary statistics. There has been a long debate on the merits of the two statistics, also in the context of DNA mixture interpretation, and no general consensus has been reached. In this paper, we show that the RMNE is a certain weighted average of inverse likelihood ratios. This is true in any forensic context. We show that the likelihood ratio in favor of the correct hypothesis is, in expectation, bigger than the reciprocal of the RMNE probability. However, with the exception of pathological cases, it is also possible to obtain smaller likelihood ratios. We illustrate this result for paternity cases. Moreover, some theoretical properties of the likelihood ratio for a large class of general pairwise kinship cases, including expected value and variance, are derived. The practical implications of the findings are discussed and exemplified.

Keywords

Kinship analysis Paternity testing Exclusion probabilities Likelihood ratios 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work of TE leading to these results was financially supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 285487 (EUROFORGEN-NoE).

References

  1. 1.
    Buckleton J, Curran J (2008) A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2(4):343–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li CC, Chakravarti A (1988) An expository review of two methods of calculating the paternity probability. Am J Hum Genet 43(2):197PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slooten K, Meester R (2013) Probabilistic strategies for familial DNA searching. J Roy Statist Soc Ser C. doi: 10.1111/rssc.12035
  4. 4.
    Thompson EA (1986) Likelihood inference of paternity. Am J Hum Genet 39(2):285PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson EA (2000) Statistical inference from genetic data on pedigrees. In: NSF-CBMS regional conference series in probability and statistics. JSTORGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egeland T, Pinto N, Vigeland MD (2013) A general approach to power calculation for relationship testing. Forensic Sci Int Genet. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.05.001
  7. 7.
    Jacquard A (1972) Genetic information given by a relative. Biometrics 28(4):1101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gjertson DW, Brenner CH, Baur MP et al (2007) ISFG: recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing. Forensic Sci Int Genet 1(3):223–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nothnagel M, Schmidtke J, Krawczak M. (2010) Potentials and limits of pairwise kinship analysis using autosomal short tandem repeat loci. Int J Legal Med 124(3):205–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Forensic InstituteThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Life SciencesAasNorway
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations