MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273354469 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/84.3.719

Reveal 8-Hour Test System for Detection of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Raw Ground Beef, Raw Beef Cubes, and Iceberg Lettuce Rinse: Collaborative Study

2001· article· en· W2273354469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles B Bird, Rebecca Hoerner, Lawrence Restaino, Glenn R. Anderson, W Birbari, L Bodra, D Brookman, Donald A. Bryant, Catherine Campbell, J Degraft-Hanson, D Fetviet, R Forde, David Goins, S Hajkowski, Elizabeth Haley, Robert E. Holland, John Jones, Joan Joseph, Nicole L. Kallewaard, J Keckeissen, T Kirkbride, Stefan Kusch, D Noel, A Nutsch, C Okolo, Kimberly A. Parks, D Raines, Anne M. Remes, Vipin Roach, Ruth Robbins, Gary E. Rodrick, L Shelef, H Theissen, P C Vasavada, Timothy C. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityMichigan State UniversityWayne State University
KeywordsFood safetyFood scienceContaminationEscherichia coliInoculationChemistryVeterinary medicineBiologyMedicineHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five different food types were analyzed by the Reveal for E. coli O157:H7 8-Hour Test System (Reveal 8) and either the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) culture method or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) culture method for the presence of E. coli O157:H7. A total of 27 laboratories representing academia and private industry in the United States and Canada participated. Food types were inoculated with E. coli O157:H7 at 2 different levels: a high level where predominantly positive results were expected, and a low level where fractional recovery was anticipated. During this study, 1,110 samples and controls were analyzed by both the Reveal 8 and by BAM or FSIS by each of the collaborators (2,220 samples in total). For each set of samples, 740 were artificially inoculated with E. coli O157:H7, and 370 were uninoculated controls. The Reveal 8 detected 528 presumptive positives of which 487 were confirmed positive by the BAM culture method. In comparison, BAM and FSIS detected 489 of the 740 artificially contaminated samples as positive. In an additional in-house study performed only on chilled and frozen raw ground beef, 240 artificially inoculated samples were analyzed by both the Reveal 8 and by FSIS. The Reveal 8 detected and confirmed 104 samples as positive compared to 79 confirmed positive by FSIS.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207