Unreliable Evidence Research Articles

A New Right to Procedural Accuracy: A Governance Model for Digital Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

This paper motivates and studies the feasibility of a new digital right to procedural accuracy (RPA) for digital evidence processing in criminal investigations. The need to guarantee a new principle of procedural accuracy under Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is based on the concern that digital forensic science and AI technology have a significant impact on individuals’ rights in criminal proceedings, which are neither coherently nor comprehensively addressed. The personal and material scope of RPA are examined and include: (i) protection against unreliable digital evidence processing; (ii) right to access the chain of evidence, explanation, and forensic assistance; and (iii) the right to participate in the determinative stages of the digital evidence processing. Limitations of the RPA are also discussed.

Surgical site infection and patient-reported outcomes in surgically treated soft tissue facial injury: A meta-analysis

BackgroundSoft tissue facial injuries (STFI) constitute a huge portion of craniofacial trauma but the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following surgical management of STFI are unknown. MethodsA PRISMA-compliant search was conducted from January 1990 until March 2023, and meta-analysis was performed using R. Pooled effects of outcomes were estimated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model/generalised linear mixed model, when feasible. ResultOut of 8,897 screened studies, 38 were included. Twelve studies reported PROMs (n= 985), while 28 studies reported SSI rates (n=10,996) following operative treatment for STFI. The pooled SSI rate (n=28) was 3.30% (95%CI 1.89%-5.71%). Surgical and non-surgical closure didn't differ significantly in SSI rate. PROs focused on scar outcomes, cosmetic outcomes, quality of life, and psychological impact. Subgroup analysis showed lower SSI risk in operative repair for general facial trauma compared to primary repair, and in general facial trauma compared to other aetiologies. The pooled patient scar assessment scale (PSAS), score at 6-12 months post-intervention (5 studies, n=217) was 16.16 (95%CI 15.34-16.97). Limited evidence was found regarding the effect and superiority of surgical treatment in cosmetic outcomes, quality of life and psychological impact. ConclusionOur findings emphasise the limited and unreliable evidence available concerning PROs following operative treatment for STFI. Future studies employing robust methodologies are needed to investigate optimal approaches for managing STFI.

Preserving evidence integrity: the key to efficient anti-corruption investigations

PurposeThis study aims to examine the connection between the integrity of records and the effectiveness of anti-corruption investigations. The objective is to determine how the quality of records affects the efficiency of anti-corruption investigations.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a qualitative, exploratory case study approach, with data collected through interviews with 15 anti-corruption investigators in 2020 in Nigeria. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.FindingsThe results indicate that the efficiency of anti-corruption investigations depends on the quality of the evidence. Proper recordkeeping, which maintains the integrity of records, is crucial for efficient anti-corruption investigations. Inadequate recordkeeping practices that do not adhere to the lifecycle concept are often driven by corruption and can significantly hinder the efficiency of anti-corruption investigations by causing delays in obtaining crucial evidence.Originality/valueFrom a records management perspective, this study highlights the impact of unreliable evidence on every corruption investigation effort and the motives behind rendering the process unproductive. Accountability forums must enforce adherence to proper recordkeeping procedures to ensure the desired investigative outcomes with minimal resources, time and effort to combat corruption.

Education and learning: potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis: some critical reading suggestions for junior doctors.

Junior doctors make clinical decisions regularly; therefore, they need to adequately interpret the evidence supporting these decisions. Patients can be harmed if clinical treatments are supported by biased or unreliable evidence. Systematic reviews that contain meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials are a relatively low-biased type of evidence to support clinical interventions. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that doctors will likely select this type of study to answer clinical questions. In this article, doctors are informed about potential methodological and ethical issues in systematic reviews that contain a meta-analysis that are sometimes not easily identified or even overlooked by the current tools developed to assess their methodological quality or risk of bias. The article presents a discussion of topics related to data extraction, accuracy in reporting, reproducibility, heterogeneity, quality assessment of primary studies included in the systematic review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest. It is expected that the information reported will be useful for junior doctors when they are reading and interpreting evidence from systematic reviews containing meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions, mainly those doctors unfamiliar with methodological principles.

Warnings From the West: Identification and Expert Evidence as Causes of Wrongful Convictions and the Implications for South Africa (Part 1)

Being wrongfully convicted of a crime is arguably one of the most dreadful examples of injustice in any criminal justice system. This phenomenon has been recorded and studied in Western, predominantly adversarial, jurisdictions such as the United States of America, England-Wales, Canada, and Australia since the late twentieth century. Factors that have been found to contribute to wrongful convictions include eyewitness misidentification, faulty forensic evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, inadequate defence, and many more. While adversarial safeguards such as cross-examination and acquired expertise are thought to diminish the chances of wrongful convictions by revealing unreliable evidence, an increasing number of researchers are concerned that these safeguards have little effect on accurate fact-finding in criminal trials. In South Africa, where individual reports of wrongful convictions in the predominantly adversarial criminal justice system have been recorded in the media, no systems exist to track or investigate the injustice of false convictions. The objective of Part 1 of this article is to review the existing literature on eyewitness misidentification evidence as cause of wrongful convictions as well as those adversarial safeguards upon which criminal justice systems rely to identify errors in fact-finding. Parallels are drawn to the adversarial system as it functions in South Africa, and the possibility of misidentification as root and legal cause of wrongful convictions locally is considered.

Independent Review, Miscarriages of Justice, and Computer Evidence

Brian Altman KC reviewed unreliable expert evidence on the Horizon software system. The Post Office denied, including to Parliament, that there was any evidence of miscarriages of justice revealed before the Court of Appeal in 2021. In his review, Brian Altman KC indicated the prosecutions was fundamentally sound; this paper looks at the quality of the judgments arrived at to come to that conclusion. 
 Index words: Altman General review; Post Office Limited; Horizon IT system; unreliable evidence; Clarke Advice; Swift Review; Bates litigation; Hamilton appeals

Hallucination-Proneness is Associated With a Decrease in Robust Averaging of Perceptual Evidence.

Hallucinations are characterized by disturbances in perceptual decision-making about environmental stimuli. When integrating across multiple stimuli to form a perceptual decision, typical observers engage in "robust averaging" by down-weighting extreme perceptual evidence, akin to a statistician excluding outlying data. Furthermore, observers adapt to contexts with more unreliable evidence by increasing this down-weighting strategy. Here, we test the hypothesis that hallucination-prone individuals (n = 38 high vs n = 91 low) would show a decrease in this robust averaging and diminished sensitivity to changes in evidence variance. We used a multielement perceptual averaging task to elicit dichotomous judgments about the "average color" (red/blue) of an array of stimuli in trials with varied strength (mean) and reliability (variance) of decision-relevant perceptual evidence. We fitted computational models to task behavior, with a focus on a log-posterior-ratio (LPR) model which integrates evidence as a function of the log odds of each perceptual option and produces a robust averaging effect. Hallucination-prone individuals demonstrated less robust averaging, seeming to weigh inlying and outlying extreme or untrustworthy evidence more equally. Furthermore, the model that integrated evidence as a function of the LPR of the two perceptual options and produced robust averaging showed poorer fit for the group prone to hallucinations. Finally, the weighting strategy in hallucination-prone individuals remained insensitive to evidence variance. Our findings provide empirical support for theoretical proposals regarding evidence integration aberrations in psychosis and alterations in the perceptual systems that track statistical regularities in environmental stimuli.

Empirical evidence of widespread exaggeration bias and selective reporting in ecology.

In many scientific disciplines, common research practices have led to unreliable and exaggerated evidence about scientific phenomena. Here we describe some of these practices and quantify their pervasiveness in recent ecology publications in five popular journals. In an analysis of over 350 studies published between 2018 and 2020, we detect empirical evidence of exaggeration bias and selective reporting of statistically significant results. This evidence implies that the published effect sizes in ecology journals exaggerate the importance of the ecological relationships that they aim to quantify. An exaggerated evidence base hinders the ability of empirical ecology to reliably contribute to science, policy, and management. To increase the credibility of ecology research, we describe a set of actions that ecologists should take, including changes to scientific norms about what high-quality ecology looks like and expectations about what high-quality studies can deliver.

A Networked Method for Multi-Evidence-Based Information Fusion.

Dempster-Shafer evidence theory is an effective way to solve multi-sensor data fusion problems. After developing many improved combination rules, Dempster-Shafer evidence theory can also yield excellent results when fusing highly conflicting evidence. However, these approaches still have deficiencies if the conflicting evidence is due to sensor malfunction. This work presents a combination method by integrating information interaction graph and Dempster-Shafer evidence theory; thus, the multiple evidence fusion process is expressed as a network. In particular, the credibility of each piece of evidence is obtained by measuring the distance between the evidence first. After that, the credibility of the evidence is evaluated, keeping the unreliable evidence out of the information interaction network. With the fusion of connected evidence, the accuracy of the fusion result is improved. Finally, application results show that the presented method is effective.

A toolkit for open and pluralistic conservation science

AbstractConservation science practitioners seek to preempt irreversible impacts on species, ecosystems, and social–ecological systems, requiring efficient and timely action even when data and understanding are unavailable, incomplete, dated, or biased. These challenges are exacerbated by the scientific community's capacity to consistently distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, including the recognition of questionable research practices (QRPs, or “questionable practices”), which may threaten the credibility of research, including harming trust in well‐designed and reliable scientific research. In this paper, we propose a “toolkit” for open and pluralistic conservation science, highlighting common questionable practices and sources of bias and indicating where remedies for these problems may be found. The toolkit provides an accessible resource for anyone conducting, reviewing, or using conservation research, to identify sources of false claims or misleading evidence that arise unintentionally, or through misunderstandings or carelessness in the application of scientific methods and analyses. We aim to influence editorial and review practices and hopefully to remedy problems before they are published or deployed in policy or conservation practice.

An Overview of Methods and Exemplars of the Use of Mendelian Randomisation in Nutritional Research.

Objectives: It is crucial to elucidate the causal relevance of nutritional exposures (such as dietary patterns, food intake, macronutrients intake, circulating micronutrients), or biomarkers in non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in order to find effective strategies for NCD prevention. Classical observational studies have found evidence of associations between nutritional exposures and NCD development, but such studies are prone to confounding and other biases. This has direct relevance for translation research, as using unreliable evidence can lead to the failure of trials of nutritional interventions. Facilitated by the availability of large-scale genetic data, Mendelian randomization studies are increasingly used to ascertain the causal relevance of nutritional exposures and biomarkers for many NCDs. Methods: A narrative overview was conducted in order to demonstrate and describe the utility of Mendelian randomization studies, for individuals with little prior knowledge engaged in nutritional epidemiological research. Results: We provide an overview, rationale and basic description of the methods, as well as strengths and limitations of Mendelian randomization studies. We give selected examples from the contemporary nutritional literature where Mendelian randomization has provided useful evidence on the potential causal relevance of nutritional exposures. Conclusions: The selected exemplars demonstrate the importance of well-conducted Mendelian randomization studies as a robust tool to prioritize nutritional exposures for further investigation.

Methods of misleading the court or other authorized body

The article considers and substantiates the need to establish the method of committing a criminal offense as a central element of forensic characteristics. The works of leading domestic and foreign scientists who have studied the concept of the method of criminal offense, its meaning and relationship with other elements of forensic characterization are analyzed and studied. The concept of the method of committing a criminal offense has been comprehensively studied. It is established that most criminologists include a certain system of actions in the method of committing a criminal offense, which includes actions to prepare, commit and conceal. The need to develop a classification of methods of committing knowingly false methods of misleading the court or other authorized body, which will allow the investigator to establish as yet unknown elements of forensic characteristics, identify investigative situations during the investigation, timely assess the testimony and other evidence.
 The analysis of Article 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was carried out and, depending on the method of action and its content, the following methods of misleading the court or other authorized body were identified:
 
 Providing knowingly false testimony.
 Compilation and / or submission of knowingly false expert opinion.
 Submission of knowingly unreliable or forged evidence.
 Compilation and / or submission of a knowingly false report of the appraiser.
 Compilation and / or submission of knowingly false translation.
 
 The article will consider in detail the methods identified by the author to provide knowingly false testimony, which include actions to prepare, commit and conceal. The ways of making a knowingly false expert opinion depending on the structure of this document are highlighted. The notion of evidence is analyzed and the ways of presenting knowingly unreliable or forged evidence are established. Depending on the procedure of property and property rights valuation, the author identifies ways to prepare, commit and conceal the preparation and submission of a knowingly false appraiser's report. Methods of knowingly incorrect translation are identified.

Echoes of covid misinformation

ABSTRACT Public support for responses to the coronavirus pandemic has sharply diverged on partisan lines in many countries, with conservatives tending to oppose lockdowns, social distancing, mask mandates and vaccines, and liberals far more supportive. This polarization may arise from the way in which the attitudes of each side is echoed back to them, especially on social media. In this paper, I argue that echo chambers are not to blame for this polarization, even if they are causally responsible for it. They are not to blame, because belief calibration in an echo chamber is a rational process; moreover, the epistemically constitutive properties of echo chambers are not optional for epistemically social animals like us. There is no special problem of echo chambers; rather, there is a problem of misleading evidence (especially higher-order evidence). Accordingly, we ought to respond to misinformation about COVID neither by attempting to dismantle echo chambers nor by attempting to make people more rational, but rather by attempting to supplant unreliable higher-order evidence with better evidence.

Premature commitment to uncertain decisions during human NMDA receptor hypofunction

Making accurate decisions based on unreliable sensory evidence requires cognitive inference. Dysfunction of n-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptors impairs the integration of noisy input in theoretical models of neural circuits, but whether and how this synaptic alteration impairs human inference and confidence during uncertain decisions remains unknown. Here we use placebo-controlled infusions of ketamine to characterize the causal effect of human NMDA receptor hypofunction on cognitive inference and its neural correlates. At the behavioral level, ketamine triggers inference errors and elevated decision uncertainty. At the neural level, ketamine is associated with imbalanced coding of evidence and premature response preparation in electroencephalographic (EEG) activity. Through computational modeling of inference and confidence, we propose that this specific pattern of behavioral and neural impairments reflects an early commitment to inaccurate decisions, which aims at resolving the abnormal uncertainty generated by NMDA receptor hypofunction.

The importance of explicit reasons when overturning a conviction: Non-compliance with the competency test or the requirement to admonish complainants

There are numerous cases in which magistrates failed to properly administer the competency test or to admonish complainants in terms of s 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. In many of these cases, the magistrates nonetheless found the accused guilty based on the inadmissible evidence of the complainants. On review or appeal, however, the higher courts set the decisions of the magistrates aside because the magistrates’ decisions were based on the unreliable evidence of the complainants. While the rulings of the higher courts were legally sound, if not explained explicitly and thoroughly, they may appear unjust, clinical, harsh, inconsiderate, or even nonsensical. Such matters involve the fundamental rights of complainants and accused persons. They also result in severe consequences for complainants and accused persons, and they involve vulnerable groups such as children and mentally-ill individuals. It is therefore important that the higher courts reviewing the procedural errors of magistrates provide explicit and thorough explanations for their findings. To avoid perceptions that the decisions of the higher courts are unjust, the rulings of the courts should expressly acknowledge and address the unfortunate consequences suffered by both complainants and accused persons when a magistrate’s conviction is unsustainable because it was based on evidence that was not properly admitted. Acknowledging and addressing the injustices may help courts provide reasons for their decisions that go beyond merely stating that the complainants’ evidence is excluded because it is unreliable. Explicit reasons in such instances would go a long way in engendering and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system and enhancing public scrutiny of the current legal position.

Intercepted Communications in the Ongwen Case: Lessons to Learn on Documentary Evidence at the icc

Abstract In the Ongwen judgment, the International Criminal Court (icc) deemed ‘highly probative evidence’ the Lord’s Resistance Army radio communications intercepted. However, the Defence had argued that it was unreliable evidence for several reasons. After considering the definition and regulatory framework governing the admission and assessment of documentary evidence at the icc and retracing the road intercept evidence made from Uganda to the Ongwen trial, the article will analyse the issues posed by intercept evidence, including some of the challenges the Defence raised against their reliability. The objective is to call attention to the overlooked concerns the interception of communications during the period to which the charges refer may give rise to at the icc, in particular, in terms of reliability. The article argues that intercepted communications’ peculiar weaknesses require specific attention. As a consequence, their reliability and weight should be assessed with circumspection in the overall evidentiary context.

A systematic review of non-HPV prognostic biomarkers used in penile squamous cell carcinoma.

The presence of lymph node metastasis is the most important prognostic indicator for patients with penile cancer. However, predicting which clinically node negative patients will harbor lymph node metastases remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of biomarkers p53, Ki-67, and SCCAg in predicting lymph node metastasis (LNM) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until 15 October 2020. Eligible studies were identified by three independent reviewers. Outcome measures included the presence of penile LNM and CSS. Extracted data were narratively synthesized with GRADE criteria utilized to evaluate the quality of evidence. In total, 999 articles were screened with 20 selected for inclusion. Studies reporting the use of p53 to predict LNM and CSS were rated as having the highest quality of evidence using the GRADE criteria, and the majority showed a positive association between p53 expression and LNM and CSS. All biomarkers and outcome combinations had at least one study showing a significant effect on predicting the outcome. However, studies were heterogeneous, and many reported nonsignificant effects. Identifying p53 overexpression may help one to identify patients at higher risks of LNM to be considered for early inguinal lymphadenectomy. There is contradictory and unreliable evidence for the prognostic value of Ki-67 and SCCAg in penile SCC for LNM and CSS. Larger studies are required with more rigorous methods and reports to improve the evidence base.

Historicism Now: Historiographic Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology Out of Bounds

Abstract This article examines historicism as the expansion of historiography beyond its bounds, analogous to Physicalism, Naturalism, Psychologism, and Scientism. Five senses of historicism are distinguished: Ontological Historicism claims ultimate reality is, and only is, historical. Idiographic historicism considers historiography an empirical science that results in observational descriptions of unique singular events. Introspective historicism considers the epistemology of historiography to be founded on self-knowledge. Scientistic historicism considers historiography an applied psychology or social science that can expand to overtake the social sciences. Methodological historicism extends the use of historiographic methodologies to unreliable or dependent evidence. The first four historicisms are inconsistent with historiography within bounds and implode. Methodological historicism describes proper historiographic methodologies that are applied out of their proper bounds, but are used in historiography based on the epistemology of testimony and the tracing of the transmission of information from historical event to historiographic evidence.

Defending IEEE Software Standards in Federal Criminal Court

IEEE's 1012 Standard for independent software and hardware verification and validation (IV&V) is under attack in U.S. federal criminal court. As software spreads through the criminal legal system, scientists, engineers, and IEEE have an essential role in ensuring courts understand and respect IEEE 1012 and IV&V. If scientists, engineers, and IEEE do not engage, courts will continue to allow unreliable scientific evidence to deprive people of their life and liberty.

Effects of non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants in humans: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Introduction Psychological and behavioural may enhance vaccine effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the effects of non-pharmacological adjuvants on vaccine effectiveness, as measured by antibody responses to vaccination. Areas covered Electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to 6th February 2018. This yielded 100 eligible papers, reporting 106 trials: 79 interventions associated with diet and/or nutrition; 12 physical activity interventions and 9 psychological interventions.Over half (58/106) of trials reported evidence of an enhanced antibody response to vaccination across one or more outcomes. The NMA considered the comparative effects between all intervention types, control and placebo for antibody titres (48 studies), seroconversion (25 studies) and seroprotection (23 studies) separately. The NMA provided weak evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotics in increasing antibody titres. Expert opinion This review offers a comprehensive summary of the literature on non-pharmacological interventions as vaccine adjuvants. The evidence is characterised by considerable heterogeneity but provides early evidence in support of nutritional formulae and probiotic interventions. Psychological and exercise-based interventions were characterised by limited and unreliable evidence. Large, well-designed studies including consistent core outcomes and measures of intervention adherence and fidelity are required.