Unexpected Similarity of Pulsed‐Field Gel Electrophoresis Patterns of Unrelated Clinical Isolates of<i>Legionella pneumophila,</i>Serogroup 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenotypic and genotypic methods identify subtypes of Legionella pneumophila, serogroup 1, and match patient and environmental isolates from suspected sources. The strength of this association is limited by the lack of information regarding the frequency and distribution of isolates belonging to various subtypes. In this study, 62 clinical isolates of L. pneumophila, serogroup 1, were subtyped by using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), to determine the distribution and degree of diversity of PFGE patterns among monoclonal antibody (MAb) subtypes. Unexpectedly, 8 of 21 MAb Philadelphia 1 isolates had a common PFGE pattern, and, among 12 MAb OLDA isolates, only 2 PFGE patterns were seen. Our hypothesis was that PFGE patterns were distributed randomly; however, statistical analysis showed that the distribution of subtypes was not random (Fisher's exact test 0.13; P>.05). In light of these results, researchers who do epidemiological investigations should use caution when interpreting the significance of matching PFGE patterns of L. pneumophila, serogroup 1.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".