Ability of Commercially Available “Date-Rape” Drug Test Kits to Detect Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate in Popular Drinks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is one of the most widely-used drugs for drink adulteration in “date-rape” cases. Several test kits have been introduced to detect GHB in drinks. These include “DrinkSafe™” cards, “DrinkSafe™” coasters, and “Drink Detective™” test kits. This work was conducted to determine how well the available kits detect GHB in a variety of beverages. Using synthetic GHB in pure water, all three test kit types gave a positive blue response. No false negatives were observed. Gamma-butyrolactone and water gave no response on any of the kits. Experiments with beverages containing GHB focussed on the “DrinkSafe™” products because they provide two test areas on each card, allowing spiked and un-spiked beverages to be compared directly. Using the original green colour of the “DrinkSafe™” products as a reference, seven of the eleven drinks gave an obvious blue reaction with the cards and nine of eleven with the coasters. In both cases, GHB-spiked Cosmopolitan and Margarita samples gave false negatives. With all beverages, however, the control drink changed the colour of the test spot. This reproducible difference in colour between the control and the spiked samples suggests that by putting an unadulterated sample of drink onto the test card, an individual could greatly increase their chances of detecting GHB in their beverage. Despite some limitations, the low cost of the kits and their apparent reliability suggest that they would be a useful screening tool for officials investigating rape cases.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".