MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015699006 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.13-246

Evaluation of the Thermo Scientific™ SureTect™ Listeria monocytogenes Assay

2014· article· en· W2015699006 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan Cloke, Carlos G. Leon-Velarde, Nathan Larson, Keron Dave, Katharine Evans, David Crabtree, Annette Hughes, Craig Hopper, Helen Simpson, Sophie Withey, Milena Oleksiuk, Jani Holopainen, Nina Wickstrand, Mikko Kauppinen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesFood scienceSalmonellaListeriaProcessed meatSignificant differenceCooked meatChemistryBiologyMathematicsBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Thermo Scientific SureTect Listeria monocytogenes Assay is a new real-time PCR assay for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in food and environmental samples. This assay was validated using the AOAC Research Institute (AOAC-RI) Performance Tested Methods program in comparison to the reference method detailed in International Organization for Standardization 11290-1:1996, including Amendment 1:2004 with the following foods and food contact surfaces: smoked salmon, processed cheese, fresh bagged spinach, fresh cantaloupe, cooked prawns (chilled product), cooked sliced turkey meat (chilled product), ice cream, pork frankfurters, salami, ground raw beef meat (12% fat), plastic, and stainless steel. All matrixes were tested by Thermo Fisher Scientific, Microbiology Division, Basingstoke, UK. In addition, three matrixes (pork frankfurters, bagged lettuce, and stainless steel) were analyzed independently as part of the AOAC-RI controlled laboratory study by the University of Guelph, Canada. Using probability of detection (POD) statistical analysis, a significant difference was demonstrated between the candidate and reference methods for salami, cooked sliced turkey and ice cream in favor of the SureTect assay. For all other matrixes, no significant difference by POD was seen between the two methods during the study. Inclusivity and exclusivity testing was also conducted with 53 and 30 isolates, respectively, which demonstrated that the SureTect assay was able to detect all serotypes of L. monocytogenes. None of the exclusivity isolates analyzed were detected by the SureTect assay. Ruggedness testing was conducted to evaluate the performance of the assay with specific method deviations outside the recommended parameters open to variation, i.e., enrichment time and temperature and lysis temperature, which demonstrated that the assay gave reliable performance. Accelerated stability testing was also conducted, validating the assay shelf life.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.330
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207