MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039060845 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.govval03

Comparative Evaluation of the VIDAS®Listeria monocytogenes Xpress (LMX) for the Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in a Variety of Foods

2013· article· en· W2039060845 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Ronald L. Johnson, John Mills, Jean-Louis Pittet, Denise Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesListeriaFood scienceMicrobiologyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The VIDAS Listeria monocytogenes Xpress (LMX) test is an enzyme-linked fluorescent immunoassay designed for use with the automated VIDAS or mini-VIDAS instruments for the specific detection of L. monocytogenes using a 26 h proprietary enrichment broth. The VIDAS LMX method was validated according to harmonized AOAC Research Institute (RI) and Official Methods of Analysis guidelines in both the AOAC Performance Tested Method (PTM) and GovVal programs. In the PTM comparison studies, the VIDAS LMX method was compared to the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Food Safety and Inspection Service Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Bacteriological Analytical Manual, and AOAC Official Methods. The comparative food studies consisted of two main parts: internal testing and AOAC independent laboratory testing, which included seven food matrixes (deli ham, processed cheese, vanilla ice cream, cooked shrimp, smoked white fish, frozen spinach, and peanut butter). As part of the AOAC R1 GovVal program, the VIDAS LMX method was compared to the Health Canada MFHPB-30 method for the detection of L. monocytogenes in five ready-to-eat (RTE) meats (hot dogs, deli turkey, deli ham, fermented sausage, and liver paté). Twenty replicates of each inoculation level and five uninoculated controls were evaluated in each study. The LMX method also included the use ofchromogenic media, chromID Ottaviani Agosti agar and chromID L. mono. agar, for confirmation of LMX presumptive results. In both the PTM and GovVal evaluations, there were no significant differences in the Chi-square values for the LMX method when compared to reference methods. The additional parameters tested in the PTM evaluation (inclusivity, exclusivity, ruggedness, stability, and lot-to-lot) satisfied the AOAC RI performance requirements. In both the PTM and GovVal validation studies, the VIDAS LMX method demonstrated reliability as a rapid qualitative method for next-day detection of L. monocytogenes in a variety of foods, including RTE meats.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFrench-language works237,207