MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273282029 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.13-317

Evaluation of the Thermo Scientific™ SureTect™ Listeria species Assay

2014· article· en· W2273282029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Cloke, Katharine Evans, David Crabtree, Annette Hughes, Helen Simpson, Jani Holopainen, Nina Wickstrand, Mikko Kauppinen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsListeriaFood scienceSpinachListeria monocytogenesSignificant differenceChemistryBiologyBacteriaMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Thermo Scientific SureTect Listeria species Assay is a new real-time PCR assay for the detection of all species of Listeria in food and environmental samples. This validation study was conducted using the AOAC Research Institute (RI) Performance Tested Methods program to validate the SureTect Listeria species Assay in comparison to the reference method detailed in International Organization for Standardization 11290-1:1996 including amendment 1:2004 in a variety of foods plus plastic and stainless steel. The food matrixes validated were smoked salmon, processed cheese, fresh bagged spinach, cantaloupe, cooked prawns, cooked sliced turkey meat, cooked sliced ham, salami, pork frankfurters, and raw ground beef. All matrixes were tested by Thermo Fisher Scientific, Microbiology Division, Basingstoke, UK. In addition, three matrixes (pork frankfurters, fresh bagged spinach, and stainless steel surface samples) were analyzed independently as part of the AOAC-RI-controlled independent laboratory study by the University ofGuelph, Canada. Using probability of detection statistical analysis, a significant difference in favour of the SureTect assay was demonstrated between the SureTect and reference method for high level spiked samples of pork frankfurters, smoked salmon, cooked prawns, stainless steel, and low-spiked samples of salami. For all other matrixes, no significant difference was seen between the two methods during the study. Inclusivity testing was conducted with 68 different isolates of Listeria species, all of which were detected by the SureTect Listeria species Assay. None of the 33 exclusivity isolates were detected by the SureTect Listeria species Assay. Ruggedness testing was conducted to evaluate the performance of the assay with specific method deviations outside of the recommended parameters open to variation, which demonstrated that the assay gave reliable performance. Accelerated stability testing was additionally conducted, validating the assay shelf life.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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