These are not false positives, because you ran the test wrong.
Suppose a male with red hair, green eyes, and AB+ blood actually has those traits they are just not enough to unlikely identify someone. Adding more genetic traits on it's own is not enough for example you have identical twin or even triplet separated at birth. The core issue is DNA marks are not independent though people often assume they are.
False positives don't necessarily mean the test was executed incorrectly. It often means you are testing for something closely related to the information you want.
If a test failed because _ then it failed independent of why it failed. If your long lost twin causes you to be involved with a paternity suit or homicide investigation then that's both a false positive and a significant problem.
Just to be more clear, the problem is that if they don't find a perfect match (that ensures a low number of false positives) then they will try a partial match, and if I]that fails a somewhat match, but then the expert will claim that there is still a very low probability of false positives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Issues_with_fore...
Isn't it true that using Bayesian inference one should conclude that given a positive DNA match that it is more likely you have a false positive than an actual match? That isn't there are greater likelihood that there was a mistake in the DNA testing result than you actually find a match? :/
The conventional wisdom for people integrating PhotoDNA is that false positives are vanishingly rare. If you run it against your data and you get a hit then you should call the FBI.
it isn't the false-positives you'd be worried about, but the false-false-positives. IE, George and Bill are twins. George has booked a flight but the face scan says it's Bill trying to get on the plane.
The size of the dataset sets the maximum odds of a false positive. We are seeing false positive problems with DNA and the FBI won't cooperate into investigating. (The problem comes from relatives--while two random people are astronomically unlikely to false positive close relatives are likely to have many matches anyway, the odds of a false positive are merely low, not astronomical.)
Is this true? It feels wrong - that a false positive DNA test is not like picking the right number on a roulette table. Considering the number of bits of information that have to match to be a positive hit in DNA testing, even 22k tests shouldn't hit a false positive.
Statistics being what they are, what is the science behind false positives in DNA testing across a fairly large sample set?
What are the false positive and false negative rates of DNA testing? Paternity tests for example seem to have ~1.1% false positive rates, and that’s comparing a single sample to a single other sample.
Keep in mind that comparing a DNA sample to a gallery for the purpose of large-scale matching raises the false positive likelihood significantly. I’m not at all convinced that this could be done without convicting innocent people.
The thing is, there are so many sites being sampled that any one false positive is buried under a mountain of true positives.
False positives only matter when you are trying to be definitive about disease diagnosis. That is why clinicians follow up with more sensitive DNA tests after something like 23 and me detects a deleterious variant. For something like ancestry, the number of true positives is so ridiculously large that a few false positives don't matter.
False positives are not a big deal for this trait.
False negatives are.
A spat of blood may not mean danger, but if it systematically put you on your guards, you are likely to get an advantages over individuals who are oblivious to it.
Suppose a male with red hair, green eyes, and AB+ blood actually has those traits they are just not enough to unlikely identify someone. Adding more genetic traits on it's own is not enough for example you have identical twin or even triplet separated at birth. The core issue is DNA marks are not independent though people often assume they are.
reply