Detection and Enumeration of<i>Clostridium difficile</i>Spores in Retail Beef and Pork
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have identified Clostridium difficile in food animals and retail meat, and concern has been raised about the potential for food to act as a source of C. difficile infection in humans. Previous studies of retail meat have relied on enrichment culture alone, thereby preventing any assessment of the level of contamination in meat. This study evaluated the prevalence of C. difficile contamination of retail ground beef and ground pork in Canada. Ground beef and ground pork were purchased from retail outlets in four Canadian provinces. Quantitative and enrichment culture was performed. Clostridium difficile was isolated from 28/230 (12%) samples overall: 14/115 (12%) ground beef samples and 14/115 (12%) ground pork samples (P = 1.0). For ground beef, 10/14 samples (71%) were positive by enrichment culture only. Of the 4 ground beef samples that were positive by direct culture, 20 spores/g were present in 2 while 120 and 240 spores/g were present in 1 each. For ground pork, 10/14 (71%) samples were positive by enrichment culture only. Of the 4 ground pork samples that were positive by direct culture, 20 spores/g were present in 3 while 60 spores/g were present in 1. Ribotype 078 predominated, consistent with some previous studies of C. difficile in food animals. Ribotype 027/North American pulsotype 1 was also identified in both retail beef and pork. This study has identified relatively common contamination of retail ground beef and pork with C. difficile spores; however, the levels of contamination were very low.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".