Validation Study of the Abacus Diagnostics ABAcard® HemaTrace® Membrane Test for the Forensic Identification of Human Blood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this validation study was to determine whether the ABAcard® HemaTrace® (Abacus Diagnostics, West Hills CA), a simple immunochromatographic test for the forensic identification of human blood, was suitable for introduction into routine laboratory use at the Centre of Forensic Sciences. In this study we examined the sensitivity and specificity of the kit, as well as the effect of environmental exposure and contamination on the test.The limit of detection of the kit was determined to be 0.07μg haemoglobin/mL. Tests showed specificity to human, higher primate, and ferret blood. Positive results were unaffected by a variety, of contaminants and under a range of conditions, with the exception of stains subjected to a tumble-dryer cycle or prolonged exposure to soil.The results of this validation support the introduction of the ABAcard® HemaTrace® test for routine use in the forensic identification of human blood.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".