Detection of <i>Cyclospora cayetanensis</i> Oocysts in Human Fecal Specimens by Flow Cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A diagnosis of cyclosporiasis typically involves stool examinations for the presence of Cyclospora oocysts by means of microscopy. In recent years, flow cytometry has been gaining in popularity as a novel method of detecting pathogens in environmental and clinical samples. The present study is an evaluation of a flow cytometric method for the detection and enumeration of Cyclospora oocysts in human fecal specimens associated with food-borne outbreaks of cyclosporiasis in Ontario, Canada. Flow cytometry results were generally very comparable to the original microscopy results for these specimens, in terms of both presence or absence of oocysts and relative oocyst concentrations. Of the 34 fecal specimens confirmed positive for Cyclospora by microscopy, 32 were also found positive by flow cytometry, and 2 others were considered equivocal. Of the eight fecal specimens reported to be negative by microscopy, two were found positive by flow cytometry and five others were considered equivocal. These two flow cytometry-positive samples and one of the equivocal samples were confirmed by microscopic reexamination, suggesting that flow cytometry may be more sensitive than microscopy. While the sample preparation time for flow cytometry is similar to or slightly longer than that for microscopy, the actual analysis time is much shorter. Further, because flow cytometry is largely automated, an analyst's levels of fatigue and expertise will not influence results. Flow cytometry appears to be a useful alternative to microscopy for the screening of large numbers of stool specimens for Cyclospora oocysts, such as in an outbreak situation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".