MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1491812810

La valutazione del rischio da Listeria monocytogenes in alimenti pronti per il consumo

2006· article· it· W1491812810 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roberta Nuvoloni, Francesca Pedonese, Carlo D’Ascenzi, Salvo Rindi

Bibliographic record

VenueUnipiEprints Open Archive (Università di Pisa) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFood Safety and Inspection ServiceU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationHealth CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RIASSUNTO La valutazione quantitativa del rischio costituisce un metodo che consente di esaminare, in modo sistematico, le informazioni ed i dati scientifici disponibili per arrivare a valutare la probabilità con cui un dato pericolo si può manifestare. Quest’ultimo può essere costituito da un’infezione, una patologia grave o addirittura dalla morte di una persona, conseguente al consumo di alimenti inquinati da patogeni alimentari. Un rischio può essere valutato in termini assoluti, per esempio prendendo in considerazione il numero dei consumatori che si ammalano ogni anno a causa del consumo di certi prodotti, o in termini relativi, paragonando la sicurezza di un prodotto in rapporto a quella di un altro. Nel presente lavoro viene riportata una sintesi del documento stilato nel 2003 da FDA e USDA (u.S. Food and Drug Administration/usda Food Safety and Inspection Agency) sulla valutazione quantitativa del rischio da Listeria monocytogenes in diversi tipi di prodotti alimentari pronti per il consumo (ready-to-eat foods), effettuato allo scopo di definire la probabilità di infezione umana associata alla loro assunzione. Poiché FDA e USDA si sono posti come finalità la valutazione del rischio di infezione per il consumatore, hanno utilizzato dati e informazioni relativi solo alle fasi più prossime a quella del consumo. Nell’illustrare le quattro fasi che costituiscono il classico percorso della valutazione del rischio (identificazione del pericolo, caratterizzazione del pericolo, valutazione dell’esposizione e caratterizzazione del rischio), verranno riportati anche i dati relativi a L. monocytogenes ed alimenti pronti per il consumo ricavati dalla letteratura più recente. SUMMARY Quantitative risk assessment is a scientific approach, able to link data from food and various data on human diseases, to provide a clear estimation of the severity of hazards and the likehood that they will occur. The hazards can be constituted from an infection, a severe disease or even the death, consequent to the contaminated food consumption. A risk can be evaluated in absolute terms, for instance taking into consideration the number of listeriosis cases per year because of the consumption of these products, or comparing the risk of a product in relationship to that of another one. Foodborne listeriosis is a relatively rare but serious disease with high fatality rates (20-30%) compared with other foodborne microbial pathogens. In this study an overview of quantitative risk assessment on Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, carried out in 2003 by U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Usda Food Safety and Inspection Agency, is reported. This research is limited to foods at retail and their subsequent public health impact at the time of consumption. The four steps of risk assessment (hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure assessment and risk characterization) are described. Moreover a brief survey of the most recent literature about L. monocytogenes and ready-to-eat foods is reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnipiEprints Open Archive (Università di Pisa)Same topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207