MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991697621 · doi:10.1556/avet.2011.010

Detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in Slovenia

2011· article· en· W1991697621 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Urška Henigman, Majda Biasizzo, Stanka Vadnjal, Andrej Kirbiš, Ivan Toplak, Darja Barlič‐Maganja

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Veterinaria Hungarica · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJavna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS
KeywordsVibrio parahaemolyticusMytilusShellfishBiologyMicrobiologyVibrioVeterinary medicineMusselAquatic animalFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Bacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in shellfish samples harvested along the Slovenian coast. Shellfish samples of Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) were collected along the Slovenian coast at four locations (Seča, Piran, Strunjan and Debeli Rtič) between 2006 and 2008. Samples were examined and analysed for the presence of V. parahaemolyticus by conventional and molecular methods. The presence of Vibrio in the samples was examined by conventional methods on plate grown bacterial cells before and after enrichment in alkaline saline peptone water (ASPW). PCR methods were used for the detection of V. parahaemolyticus-specific toxR and tlh genes and of the virulence-associated tdh and trh genes. Out of 168 samples examined, 24 were positive for toxR and tlh genes by PCR from enrichment broth. Five out of 62 (8.1%), 4 out of 32 (12.5%) and 15 out of 74 (20.2%) samples were positive in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively. Colonies of V. parahaemolyticus were isolated from only one sample positive for V. parahaemolyticus by PCR.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Veterinaria HungaricaSame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207