Mineralwasser oder Leitungswasser? Eine systematische Literaturanalyse zur Frage der mikrobiellen Sicherheit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Based on sporadic reports of microbial contamination of mineral waters, it has been recommended that, for safety reasons, particularly immunocompromised patients should drink tap water rather than bottled mineral water. However, in terms of safety, evidence of the clinical consequences may allow a better estimate than a positive in vitro test for contamination. Therefore, we reviewed the literature on documented disease outbreaks due to contaminated mineral and tap waters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature using the database MEDLINE. In order to identify evidence relevant for Germany, we restricted our search to the years 1985-1997 (i.e. legal force of the mineral and table waters act in Germany) and the countries of Central and Northwestern Europe as well as the USA and Canada. RESULTS: Cases of contamination of tap water were documented in nearly all countries included. In 35 communications we found reports on a total of 423,000 cases of disease outbreaks due to contaminated tap water, in some cases even with lethal outcome. Main diagnosis was gastroenteritis, and main species of microorganism was crytosporidium. In contrast, there was no documented case of disease outbreak due to contaminated bottled mineral water. CONCLUSION: Tap water as well as bottled water are both supremely safe components of nutrition. The recommendation that tap water is better than mineral water, particularly for high-risk patients, is not supported by the literature.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".