Multi-laboratory validation of DNAxs including the statistical library DNAStatistX.

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.

Automated estimation of the number of contributors in autosomal short tandem repeat profiles using a machine learning approach.

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.