MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124560525 · doi:10.1071/ar04129

The Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, their ruminant hosts, and potential on-farm interventions: a review

2005· review· en· W2124560525 on OpenAlexaff
B. Vanselow, Dennis O Krause, Christopher S. McSweeney

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Agricultural Research · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscherichia coliShiga toxinBiologyOrganismMicrobiologyFood safetyColicinLivestockHuman pathogenSalmonellaFood chainSerotypeManureAntibioticsBiotechnologyBacteriaFood scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 as a major human pathogen over the last 2 decades has focused attention on this organism’s ruminant hosts. Despite implementation of conventional control methods, people continue to become seriously ill from contaminated meat or other food products, manure-contaminated drinking and recreational water, and direct contact with ruminants. E. coli O157:H7 can cause life-threatening disease, and is a particular threat to children, through acute and chronic kidney damage. Compared with other food-borne bacteria, E. coli O157:H7 has a remarkably low infectious dose and is environmentally robust. Cattle are largely unaffected by this organism and have been identified as the major source of E. coli O157:H7 entering the human food chain. Other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli can be pathogenic to humans and there is increasing evidence that their significance has been underestimated. Governments around the world have acted to tighten food safety regulations, and to investigate animal sources and on-farm control of this and related organisms. Potential intervention strategies on-farm include: feed and water hygiene, altered feeding regimes, specific E. coli vaccines, antibacterials, antibiotics, probiotics, and biological agents or products such as bacteriophages, bacteriocins, or colicins.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Agricultural ResearchSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207