MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996633814 · doi:10.1128/jcm.02219-12

Comparison of Three Different Methods for Detection of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in a Tertiary Pediatric Care Center

2012· article· en· W1996633814 on OpenAlexaff
Émilie Vallières, Maude Saint-Jean, Fabien Rallu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacConkey agarSTX2MicrobiologyEscherichia coliSerotypeShiga toxinDiarrheaMedicineImmunoassayAgarVirologyBiologyBacteriaInternal medicineImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) is a well-known cause of sporadic and epidemic food-borne gastroenteritis. A low infectious dose, approximately 10 microorganisms, is sufficient to cause disease that may lead to hemolytic-uremic syndrome. The objective of this study was to compare the performances of an in-house real-time PCR, a commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Premier EHEC; Meridian Bioscience), and culture on sorbitol MacConkey agar for the detection of STEC in a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Of 632 stool samples tested, 21 were positive for STEC. All were detected by PCR, 6 were detected by EIA, and only 5 O157 STEC isolates were identified by culture. Among the 15 specimens falsely negative by EIA, there were 9 Stx1, 2 Stx2, and 4 Stx1 and Stx2 STEC isolates. The latter group included 2 O157 STEC isolates that would have been missed if only EIA had been performed. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study performed in a pediatric hospital which demonstrates the superiority of PCR over EIA for the detection of STEC. We conclude that PCR is specific and more sensitive than EIA. PCR should be considered for routine use in clinical settings where molecular detection facilities are available. Its lower limit of detection, equivalent to the infectious dose, is an obvious advantage for patient care and public health surveillance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207