Comparison of Molecular Typing Methods Useful for Detecting Clusters of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli Isolates through Routine Surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Campylobacter spp. may be responsible for unreported outbreaks of food-borne disease. The detection of these outbreaks is made more difficult by the fact that appropriate methods for detecting clusters of Campylobacter have not been well defined. We have compared the characteristics of five molecular typing methods on Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli isolates obtained from human and nonhuman sources during sentinel site surveillance during a 3-year period. Comparative genomic fingerprinting (CGF) appears to be one of the optimal methods for the detection of clusters of cases, and it could be supplemented by the sequencing of the flaA gene short variable region (flaA SVR sequence typing), with or without subsequent multilocus sequence typing (MLST). Different methods may be optimal for uncovering different aspects of source attribution. Finally, the use of several different molecular typing or analysis methods for comparing individuals within a population reveals much more about that population than a single method. Similarly, comparing several different typing methods reveals a great deal about differences in how the methods group individuals within the population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".