ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2026
Same pattern, different result: Algorithmic inconsistency in breath alcohol testing-case reports.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breath alcohol analyzers employ algorithmic safeguards to identify samples that may be falsely elevated due to mouth alcohol contamination. One such safeguard in the DataMaster DMT (also known as the Intox DMT) is commonly referred to as the 95% rule. Under this criterion, if the final quarter-second average breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) measured during sample delivery is less than 95% of a previous high value recorded during the same sample test, the instrument is expected to generate an Invalid status message. Four cases are presented in which the stated criterion was met, yet the instrument failed to generate an Invalid status message in three of the four cases. The absence of the Invalid status message in the three cases is not explained by any documented alternative criteria or exceptions in the manufacturer's materials or operator training resources. These findings suggest that the 95% rule is either inconsistently applied or subject to additional parameters that govern its implementation. An independent review of the instrument's source code would help clarify the basis for these discrepancies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.