Blind trials evaluating in vitro infectivity of<i>Cryptosporidium</i>oocysts using cell culture immunofluorescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An optimized cell culture immunofluorescence (IFA) procedure, using the HCT-8 cell line, was evaluated in blind trials to determine the sensitivity and reproducibility of measuring the infectivity of flow-cytometry-prepared inocula of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. In separate trials, suspensions consisting of between 0% and 100% viable oocysts were prepared at the US Environmental Protection Agency, shipped to the American Water Laboratory, and analyzed blindly by cell culture IFA. Data indicated the control (100% live) oocyst suspensions yielded statistically similar results to cell culture dose-response curve data developed previously at the American Water Laboratory. For test samples containing oocyst suspensions of unknown infectivity, cell culture IFA analyses indicated a high degree of correlation (r2 = 0.89; n = 26) with the values expected by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Cell culture infectivity correlates well with neonatal mouse infectivity assays, and these blind validation trials provide credibility for the cell culture IFA procedure as a cost-effective and expedient alternative to mouse infectivity assays for determining in vitro infectivity of C. parvum oocysts.
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 | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".