MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299559882

Domoic acid analysis in bivalve molluscs. Seafoodplus traceability

2006· article· en· W2299559882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Archive of Ifremer (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Toxins and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomoic acidChromatographyBioassayMarine toxinEuropean commissionChemistryToxinBiologyEnvironmental chemistryBiochemistryEcologyEuropean union
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domoic acid (DA) was identified as the toxin responsible for an outbreak of illness in Canada in 1987, caused by eating blue mussels that had accumulated DA as a result of the presence of Pseudo-nitzschia pungens. It is named amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP). Since a regulatory level of 20 mg DA/kg of shellfish meat was established. The methods of determination of domoic acid are reviewed: biological assays in vivo and in vitro, biochemical and chemical assays. The AOAC mouse bioassay, which is used for PSP, cannot detect domoic acid at the regulatory level of 20 mg/kg tissue and no interlaboratory validation of this method for domoic acid has been carried out. The Quillian method, a liquid chromatography-UV detection method is approved as European Norm by CEN and recommended by Codex Alimentarius as reference method. The European Commission Regulation stipulate that the reference method shall be the HPLC method and the Community Reference Laboratory on Marine Biotoxins (CRLMB) recommends Quillian method as routine method. Others protocols such as receptor binding assay, immunoassays and thin layer chromatography can be used as alternative for routine monitoring. The liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method allows to confirm the presence of domoic acid isomers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Archive of Ifremer (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea)Same topicMarine Toxins and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207