MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053622953 · doi:10.1603/me10251

Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Diagnostics of Bed Bug (Hemiptera: Cimicidae)

2011· article· en· W2053622953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allen L. Szalanski, Amber D. Tripodi, James W. Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Entomology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Arkansas
KeywordsCimex lectulariusBed bugBiologyHemipteraAmpliconPolymerase chain reactionMultiplex polymerase chain reactionMitochondrial DNAMultiplexGeneticsZoologyGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cimex lectularius L. (Hemiptera: Cimicidae) is a widespread blood feeding pest of humans around the world, including North America, and has recently undergone a resurgence. A molecular diagnostic technique applying multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was developed to distinguish bed bug eggs, leg fragments, and degraded samples from other arthropods that frequently occur in human dwellings. A 410-428-bp region of the mitochondrial DNA 16S rRNA gene was used. To design C. lectularius-specific PCR primers, DNA sequences of various bed bug samples from the United States, Canada, and Australia, along with sequences of other Cimicidae and arthropods that often occur in dwellings, were considered. Based on DNA sequence variation, one reverse PCR primer specific for C. lectularius was identified. Multiplex PCR using three primers will yield a 417- and 140-bp amplicon for C. lectularius and a single 410-428-bp amplicon for other taxa. This assay was successful in identifying C. lectularius eggs, leg fragments, and degraded samples. This technique should provide a reliable, quick, and economical technique for identifying C. lectularius, when morphological identification is not possible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EntomologySame topicDermatological diseases and infestationsFrench-language works237,207