Evaluation of two commercial methods for the detection of<i>Listeria</i>sp. and<i>Listeria monocytogenes</i>in a chicken nugget processing plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study measures the detection performances of two rapid test systems (Listeria Rapid Test Clearview and Bax system) for the screening of Listeria sp. and Listeria monocytogenes, respectively. A total of 413 samples from different sources (product from (i) different stages of processing, (ii) different environments, and (iii) different food handlers), collected from a chicken nugget processing plant, were analysed by both rapid methods and a cultural method consisting of pre-enrichment, enrichment, and isolation onto selective agars (PALCAM, LPM, and HCLA). Overall, results showed an excellent correlation between data obtained using Clearview and the cultural method, with Clearview presenting an efficiency of 99%. Bax showed a lower correlation using the cultural method, with an efficiency of 71.1%. The type of sample did not affect the efficiency of Clearview, which varied from 98.1% for product samples to 100% for environmental and food handler samples, while for Bax it had a marked influence. Efficiency of Bax varied from as high as 100% for food handlers to 37.9% for product samples.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".