MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171556042 · doi:10.1080/15459624.2011.601994

Performance of Two Different Limulus Amebocyte Lysate Assays for the Quantitation of Fungal Glucan

2011· article· en· W2171556042 on OpenAlexafffund
Hafsa Cherid, Mark Foto, J. David Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsParacel LaboratoriesCarleton University
FundersHealth CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsLaminarinLimulus amebocyte lysateCurdlanGlucanMannanPullulanMicrobiologyBeta-glucanChemistryPolysaccharideBiologyBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the response of various forms and sources of glucans toward two different Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) methods, the modified LAL, and Glucatell. The glucans studied were curdlan, laminarin, yeast glucan, barley glucan, paramylon, pullulan, pustulan, mannan, and pachyman (as part of the Glucatell kit). Both methods provided largely similar results for each of the glucans; however, the Glucatell method yielded slightly higher responses to certain structures that may not necessarily be of fungal origin, leading to falsely greater positive results. The performance of each method to measure fungal glucan concentration specifically was then assessed.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207