Does Sporadic Listeria Gastroenteritis Exist? A 2-Year Population-Based Survey in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Febrile gastroenteritis due to Listeria monocytogenes (LM) has been primarily described in foodborne outbreaks. We decided to determine the incidence of sporadic, febrile gastroenteritis due to LM in a large, well-defined North American population over a 2-year period and to compare these cases to sporadic cases of Campylobacter and Salmonella infections occurring concurrently in the community. METHODS: From 1 September 2002 through 31 August 2004, all stool specimens submitted for evaluation of diarrheal illness to a public health laboratory and to a children's hospital serving a population of approximately 350,000 were examined for the presence of Listeria species. Patients identified as having LM in their stool samples were matched with 2 temporally-matched patients with cultures positive for Campylobacter and Salmonella species. Patients with LM and control patients were contacted by telephone, and they answered a questionnaire that examined clinical features and risk factors for diarrheal illness. RESULTS: A total of 7775 stool specimens were submitted during the period 1 September 2002-31 August 2004. Thirty-nine Listeria species were recovered. Seventeen of the species were LM, 13 were Listeria innocua, 3 were Listeria welshimeri, 1 was Listeria grayi, and 4 were other species. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis results demonstrated no temporal or other clusters, and no seasonality was noted for isolates of LM. Preexisting gastrointestinal problems were much more common in patients with LM (P=.001) than in patients with Campylobacter or Salmonella infections. CONCLUSIONS: Sporadic gastroenteritis due to LM appears to be an uncommon illness, and routine screening of stool samples for LM remains unwarranted. Preexisting gastrointestinal disease may be a risk factor for infection of the gastrointestinal tract with LM.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".