MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171177144 · doi:10.1093/ps/86.2.394

Frequency and Enumeration of Campylobacter Species from Processed Broiler Carcasses by Weep and Rinse Samples

2007· article· en· W2171177144 on OpenAlexaff
Norman J. Stern, Franklín Georgsson, Ruff Lowman, Jean-Robert Bisaillon, Jarle Reiersen, Kenneth A. Callicott, Margrét Geirsdóttir, R. Hrolfsdóttir, Kelli L. Hiett

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersAgricultural Research Service
KeywordsBroilerEnumerationCampylobacterVeterinary medicineBiologyFood scienceAnimal scienceMathematicsMedicineBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frequency and numbers of Campylobacter spp. were assessed per freshly processed, contaminated broiler carcass. Campylobacter-positive flocks were identified by cecal sample analysis at slaughter. These flocks had been tested as Campylobacter negative at 4.1 +/- 0.9 d prior to slaughter. Levels of contamination were estimated using 2 sampling approaches per carcass: (1) free weep fluids and (2) whole-carcass, 100 mL of distilled water rinses. Estimations of counts were determined by directly plating dilutions of weeps and rinses onto Campy-Cefex agar and incubating the plates at 41.5 degrees C under microaerobic atmosphere. Confirmation was provided by latex agglutination to quantify levels per milliliter of weep and per 100 mL of rinse. Thirty-two slaughter groups ( approximately 20 carcasses per group) were compared from 2003 to 2004. The Campylobacter-positive weep frequency was 84.8%, whereas the frequency for rinse samples was 74.4% (P < 0.001). Enumeration of Campylobacter spp. on positive samples ranged from 0.70 to 6.13 log(10) cfu/mL of weep (geometric mean of 2.84) and from 2.30 to 7.72 log(10) cfu/100 mL of rinse (geometric mean of 4.38). The correlations between weep and rinse were 0.814 with 0.5 mL of rinse and 0.6294 when applying 0.1 mL of rinse The quantitative regression analyses for these 2 corresponding tests were log(10) rinse (for 0.5 mL of inoculum) = 1.1965 log(10) weep + 0.4979, and log(10) rinse (for 0.1 mL of inoculum) = 1.322 log(10) weep - 0.1521. FlaA SVR sequencing of isolates indicated that the same genotypes were found in weep and rinse samples. Weep and rinse sampling led to different proportions of Campylobacter-positive carcasses detection, but we demonstrated that this difference was reduced by increasing the amount of rinse fluid used for plating.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207