Comparison of the Compact Dry EC with the Most Probable Number Method (AOAC Official Method 966.24) for Enumeration of Escherichia coli and Coliform Bacteria in Raw Meats: Performance-Tested MethodSM 110402
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compact Dry E. coli/Coliform Count (EC) is a ready-to-use test method for the enumeration of Escherichia coli and coliform bacteria in food. The plates are presterilized and contain culture medium and a cold water-soluble gelling agent. The medium should be rehydrated with 1 mL diluted sample inoculated onto the center of the self-diffusible medium, allowing the solution to diffuse by capillary action. The plate can be incubated at 35 degrees C for 20-24 h and the colonies counted without any further working steps. The Compact Dry EC medium plates were validated as an analysis tool for determining colony-forming units (CFU) of E. coli and coliform bacteria from a variety of raw meats using 5 different types of raw meats. The performance tests were conducted at 35 degrees C. In all studies performed, no apparent differences were observed between the Compact Dry EC method and the AOAC Official Method 966.24 results. For the accuracy claim (n = 75), a correlation factor of r2 = 0.93 (E. coli) and r2 = 0.93 (coliform bacteria) could be assigned, as stated in the application for "Performance-Tested Method."
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".