MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W185301046 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/86.4.737

Receptor Binding Assay for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning Toxins: Optimization and Interlaboratory Comparison

2003· article· en· W185301046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiyamalie R. Ruberu, Yungang Liu, Carolyn T. Wong, S. Kusum Perera, Gregg W. Langlois, Gregory J. Doucette, Christine L. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Toxins and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParalytic shellfish poisoningDetection limitShellfishSaxitoxinShellfish poisoningChromatographyBioassayLiquid scintillation countingToxinBiologyChemistryMicrobiologyFisheryEcologyAquatic animalFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A receptor binding assay (RBA) for detection of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins was formatted for use in a high throughput detection system using microplate scintillation counting. The RBA technology was transferred from the National Ocean Service, which uses a Wallac TriLux 1450 MicroBeta microplate scintillation counter, to the California Department of Health Services, which uses a Packard TopCount scintillation counter. Due to differences in the detector arrangement between these 2 counters, markedly different counting efficiencies were exhibited, requiring optimization of the RBA protocol for the TopCount instrument. Precision, accuracy, and sensitivity [limit of detection = 0.2 microg saxitoxin (STX) equiv/100 g shellfish tissue] of the modified protocol were equivalent to those of the original protocol. The RBA robustness and adaptability were demonstrated by an interlaboratory study, in which STX concentrations in shellfish generated by the TopCount were consistent with MicroBeta-derived values. Comparison of STX reference standards obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Research Council, Canada, showed no observable differences. This study confirms the RBA's value as a rapid, high throughput screen prior to testing by the conventional mouse bioassay (MBA) and its suitability for providing an early warning of increasing PSP toxicity when toxin levels are below the MBA limit of detection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.280 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations39
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicMarine Toxins and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207