Truncation of Breath Alcohol Measurements and Its Effect on Peak Concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An intra-subject comparative study was performed using breath analysis to assess the forensic implications of data truncation on peak blood alcohol concentrations (Cmax). Accordingly, several other forensically relevant pharmacokinetic parameters associated with Cmax were investigated, including the time-to-peak (Tmax), plateau (PLAT) duration, and the rise in blood alcohol concentration (BAC) following the end of drinking (EOD). The study consisted of three drinking sessions, nine subjects per session, with drinking intervals of 30, 90, and 180 minutes, and ethanol doses of 1.0, 1.1, and 1.6 g/kg, respectively. Three-digit breath measurements were collected in duplicate at 10, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120, 135, 195, and 255 minutes following EOD using a fuel-cell based breath instrument (Intox ECIR®). Breath results were then computed using two different data treatment methods. The first method averaged duplicate three-digit breath measurements and reported results to the third digit. The second method used the lower of the two duplicate measurements and reported results to the truncated second digit. The results of the two data treatment methods were then compared using general statistics and alcohol concentration-time profiles. The overall rise in BAC following EOD for three-digit results was 0.009 g/210L with a range of 0.000–0.030 g/210L (standard deviation 0.008 g/210L). When breath measurements where truncated, 25 of the 27 subjects had a rise in BAC of 0.02 g/210L or less. In total, 6 subjects had no rise in BAC following the EOD when evaluating the three-digit results. In contrast, when BAC results were truncated, 11 subjects exhibited no increase in BAC following EOD. The overall Tmax was reduced from 41 minutes to 26 minutes, and overall PLAT durations were extended from 22 to 39 minutes, when the breath measurements were truncated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".