The use of randomization tests to assess the degree of similarity in PFGE patterns of <i>E. coli</i> O157 isolates from known outbreaks and statistical space–time clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using isolates from reported cases of Escherichia coli O157 from Alberta, Canada in 2002, we applied randomization tests to determine if cases associated with an outbreak or statistical space-time cluster had more similar pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns, based on Dice coefficients, than expected by chance alone. Within each outbreak and space-time cluster, we assessed the mean, median, 25th percentile, 75th percentile, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and interquartile range of the Dice coefficients of each pairwise comparison among the isolates. To assess the statistical significance of measures of location (e.g. mean) and variation (e.g. standard deviation) we created randomization distributions using all isolates or only isolates from sporadic cases. We determined that randomization tests are an appropriate tool for evaluating the similarity among isolates from cases that have been linked epidemiologically or statistically. We found little difference between using all cases or only sporadic cases when creating our randomization distributions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".