Efficacy of Two Commercial Systems for Identification of Clinical and Environmental Escherichia coli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of API 20E and FluorocultÒ LMX broth in identifying a collection of 200 E. coli isolates. A total of 100 isolates originated from clinical samples (UTI) and 100 isolates from environmental water receiving faecal contamination. Randomly selected isolates that were identified by API 20E and FluorocultÒ LMX broth were further identified by PCR targeting a fragment of the E. coli 16S rRNA gene. The results showed that overall 95% and 100% of the clinical and environmental isolates respectively were identified with various degrees of accuracy as E. coli by API 20E. However, only 86% of the clinical isolates and 32% of environmental isolates were identified with high level of discrimination (90% and above). Identification by FluorocultÒ LMX broth successfully identified 90% and 96% of the clinical and environmental isolates respectively as E. coli. Further identification by PCR showed that 70% (n = 20) and 55% (n = 20) of the isolates that were previously identified by the two commercial systems were successfully identified by PCR. Identification of E. coli isolates of clinical and environmental origins by rapid commercial systems should be interpreted with care, PCR might be used to further confirm the result of rapid identification systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".