MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091384999 · doi:10.1139/w06-148

Detection of the Escherichia coli pathogenic gene<i>eae</i>with three real-time polymerase chain reaction methods

2007· article· en· W2091384999 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joanne McCrea, Chenyi Liu, Lai-King Ng, Gehua Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymerase chain reactionEscherichia coliReal-time polymerase chain reactionBiologySYBR Green IGeneMolecular biologyDetection limitDNAPrimer dimerMicrobiologyGeneticsChemistryMultiplex polymerase chain reactionChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods are currently available to rapidly detect the presence of a specific DNA sequence. When used for detection of pathogenic organisms, the turnaround time for PCR-based methods is much lower than for traditional culture techniques. This study compared the sensitivity of three real-time PCR methods when detecting the Escherichia coli pathogenic gene eae to determine which method is most effective in identifying very low levels of the organism. The three methods were used to detect the eae gene over a range of DNA concentrations. The differences in sensitivity were statistically significant (p<0.05), and SYBR Green I PCR was found to have the lowest detection limit of the three; LUX primers had the highest detection limit. Therefore, using a defined DNA concentration for detecting the eae gene, SYBR Green I is the best alternative.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207