MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064821779 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052709

Selection and Characterization of a Candidate Therapeutic Bacteriophage That Lyses the Escherichia coli O104:H4 Strain from the 2011 Outbreak in Germany

2012· article· en· W2064821779 on OpenAlexaff
Maia Merabishvili, Daniël De Vos, Gilbert Verbeken, Andrew M. Kropinski, Dieter Vandenheuvel, Rob Lavigne, Pierre Wattiau, Jan Mast, Catherine Ragimbeau, Joël Mossong, J. M. J. C. Scheres, Ніна Чанішвілі, Mario Vaneechoutte, Jean‐Paul Pirnay

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsOutbreakEscherichia coliBloody diarrheaMicrobiologyBacteriophageDiarrheaVirologyStrain (injury)Phage therapyBiologyMedicineGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2011, a novel strain of O104:H4 Escherichia coli caused a serious outbreak of foodborne hemolytic uremic syndrome and bloody diarrhea in Germany. Antibiotics were of questionable use and 54 deaths occurred. Candidate therapeutic bacteriophages that efficiently lyse the E. coli O104:H4 outbreak strain could be selected rather easily from a phage bank or isolated from the environment. It is argued that phage therapy should be more considered as a potential armament against the growing threat of (resistant) bacterial infections.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
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

Citations57
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207