Growth and inactivation of Salmonella at low refrigerated storage temperatures and thermal inactivation on raw chicken meat and laboratory media: Mixed effect meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth and inactivation regression equations were developed to describe the effects of temperature on Salmonella concentration on chicken meat for refrigerated temperatures (⩽10°C) and for thermal treatment temperatures (55-70°C). The main objectives were: (i) to compare Salmonella growth/inactivation in chicken meat versus laboratory media; (ii) to create regression equations to estimate Salmonella growth in chicken meat that can be used in quantitative risk assessment (QRA) modeling; and (iii) to create regression equations to estimate D-values needed to inactivate Salmonella in chicken meat. A systematic approach was used to identify the articles, critically appraise them, and pool outcomes across studies. Growth represented in density (Log10CFU/g) and D-values (min) as a function of temperature were modeled using hierarchical mixed effects regression models. The current meta-analysis analysis found a significant difference (P⩽0.05) between the two matrices - chicken meat and laboratory media - for both growth at refrigerated temperatures and inactivation by thermal treatment. Growth and inactivation were significantly influenced by temperature after controlling for other variables; however, no consistent pattern in growth was found. Validation of growth and inactivation equations against data not used in their development is needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".