Touch DNA collection – Performance of four different swabs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collaborative study conducted by three police forensic units, a DNA laboratory, and a forensic academic institute was undertaken in order to compare the performance of four different swabs in controlled and quasi-operational conditions. For this purpose, a reference swab (Prionics cardboard evidence collection kit) currently used within the police forensic units and 3 challenger swabs (COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ (Genetics variety), Puritan FAB-MINI-AP and Sarstedt Forensic Swab) were used for collecting DNA traces from previously used items (referred as "touch DNA" in this article) including on 60 collars, 60 screwdrivers and 60 steering wheels obtained from volunteers. For each comparison, the surface considered was divided into two equal components; one was sampled with the reference swab and the other with one of the three challenger swabs. This lead to a total of 360 samples. Conclusions were consistent within the four operational partners. From a practical point of view, the COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ (Genetics variety) was judged the most convenient to use. Furthermore, it allowed the recovery of significantly more DNA from collars (0.65 vs 0.13 ng/μL) and steering wheels (2.82 vs 1.77 ng/μL), and a similar amount of DNA from screwdrivers (0.032 vs 0.026 ng/μL) compared with the Prionics reference swab. The two other challenger swabs provided results that were not significantly different from the reference swab, except for the Puritan swab, whose performance was significantly lower for steering wheels (0.37 vs 0.58 ng/μL). As part of a conservation study, 50 μL of a blood dilution (1/4 with PBS) was deposited on a total of 105 COPAN (Genetics and Crime Scene varieties), Prionics and Sarstedt swabs. They were stored within a cupboard at room temperature. The integrity of the recovered DNA was evaluated with NGM SElect™ DNA profiles after different time-spans ranging from 1 day to 12 months by comparing the height difference of the peaks occurring at the shortest and longest loci, respectively. DNA seemed to remain stable, except when using the COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ treated with an antimicrobial agent (Crime scene variety), which resulted in significant DNA degradation. Following these tests, the COPAN 4N6FLOQSwabs™ (Genetics variety), a model with a desiccant, was selected for further testing in fully operational conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".