MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911466849 · doi:10.1155/2012/646981

Detection of <i>Clostridium difficile</i> in Retail Ground Meat Products in Manitoba

2012· article· en· W1911466849 on OpenAlexaffabout
Monique Visser, Shadi Sepehrim, Nancy Olson, Tim Du, Michael R. Mulvey, Michelle J. Alfa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaShared HealthSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClostridium difficileNorfloxacinMicrobiologyFood scienceBiologyMedicineCiprofloxacinAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to determine whether Clostridium difficile was present in uncooked retail ground beef and ground pork products sold in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Using an alcohol treatment protocol and inoculation of cultures on C difficile Moxalactam Norfloxacin (CDMN), toxigenic C difficile was found in 6.3% of 48 meat samples. The C difficile isolates belonged to different pulsotypes, all of which had been previously isolated from the stool of Manitoba patients with C difficile disease. Because cooking of meat will not eradicate C difficile spores, this raises a concern regarding potential foodborne transmissibility of this organism. spores, this raises a concern regarding potential foodborne transmissibility of this organism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207