MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270148074 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.15-044

Method Modification of the Thermo Scientific SureTect Listeria monocytogenes Assay for Raw Meat, Dairy, Produce, and Seafood

2015· article· en· W2270148074 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan Cloke, Katharine Evans, David Crabtree, Annette Hughes, Helen Simpson, Carlos G. Leon-Velarde, Nathan Larson, Keron Dave, Jani Holopainen, Nina Wickstrand, Mikko Kauppinen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood sciencePasteurizationListeria monocytogenesListeriaRaw materialRaw meatFood safetyChemistryBiotechnologyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Thermo Scientific™ SureTect™ Listeria monocytogenes assay is a real-time PCR assay for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in food and environmental samples, which was certified during 2013 by the AOAC Research Institute (RI) as Performance Tested Method(SM) (PTM) 061302 for a representative range of key food matrixes and production surfaces. This report details the method modification study, which was conducted during 2014, using the AOAC-RI PTM program to extend the validated matrix claims of the assay in comparison to the reference method detailed in International Organization for Standardization 11290-1:1996, including Amendment 1:2004, to gain certification for raw ground turkey, raw ground pork, pasteurized 2% milk, raw pork sausages, raw cod, pasteurized brie cheese, cooked sliced ham, and bagged lettuce. All matrixes were tested by Thermo Fisher Scientific, Microbiology Division, Basingstoke, UK. In addition, brie cheese, bagged lettuce, and raw cod were analyzed independently by the University of Guelph, Canada, during the AOAC-RI controlled independent laboratory study. Using probability of detection (POD) statistical analysis, a significant difference was demonstrated between the candidate and reference methods for the high spiking level with raw ground pork and brie cheese. For all other matrixes and the low spiked levels for raw ground pork and brie cheese, no significant difference by POD was seen between the two methods during the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.014

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207