Effect of selected antimicrobial compounds on the radiosensitization of<i>Salmonella</i>Typhi in ground beef
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In this study, we extended our previous work to determine the efficiency of antimicrobial compounds in increase of relative radiosensitivity of Salmonella Typhi in medium fat ground beef (23% fat) by testing 41 different essential oils (EOs), oleoresins and food sauces. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ground beef samples inoculated with Salmonella Typhi (10(6) CFU g(-1)) were treated with each antimicrobial compound at a concentration of 0.5% (w/w). Then, the samples (25 g each) were packaged under air and irradiated in a (60)Co irradiator at doses from 0 to 1.75 kGy. Radiosensitivity was evaluated by calculating relative radiation sensitivity, defined as the ratio of radiation D(10) value in the absence/presence of antimicrobial compound. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the compound tested, the addition of antimicrobial compound decreased the D(10) value of Salmonella Typhi, resulting in an increase of the radiation sensitivity up to more than four times. Among these antimicrobial compounds, Chinese cinnamon EO, clove EO and trans-cinnamaldehyde were most effective to increase the radiosensitivity of Salmonella Typhi in ground beef. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: These observations demonstrate that some active compounds can function as radiosensitizers of Salmonella Typhi.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".