Food Safety and Food Access: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility of testing the hypothesis that differences in neighborhood level food access may be associated with consumer exposure to food borne microbial contamination.</p> <p><strong>Methods:</strong> This study was carried out in Baltimore MD in 2011 among selected neighborhoods defined as high or low food access. In each category, packages of chicken thighs and ground beef were purchased from small stores and supermarkets. We evaluated presence of <em>E</em><em>.</em><em> coli </em>and <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> and also tested isolates for antimicrobial resistance.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> Microbial contamination of both chicken and beef products was highly prevalent (<em>S</em><em>.</em><em> aureus</em><em>-</em>13/32 for chicken and 14/32 for beef; <em>E</em><em>.</em><em> coli</em> 21/32 for chicken and 12/32 for beef). Small stores were more likely to sell food carrying these microbes as well as MDR strains of both <em>E</em><em>.</em><em> coli</em> and <em>S</em><em>.</em><em> aureus</em>, and chicken was more likely to carry <em>E</em><em>.</em><em> coli</em> as compared to ground beef.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This is the first study of this hypothesis. While it is limited in size and in focus on one US city, the results indicate that further research is appropriate to examine neighborhood level risk factors for differential exposures to food borne microbes.</p> <p><strong>Abbreviations</strong><strong>:</strong><strong> </strong><em>S</em><em>.</em><em> aureus </em>(<em>Staphylococcus aureus</em>);<em> E</em><em>.</em><em> coli </em>(<em>Escherichia coli</em>),<em> </em>MRSA (methicilllin resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em>),<em> </em>MDR (multi-drug resistant), LFA (low food access), HFA (high food access). FDA (US Food and Drug Administration), USDA (US Department of Agriculture), CLSI (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute).</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".