Equivalence of Assurance® Gold Enzyme Immunoassay for Visual or Instrumental Detection of Motile and Nonmotile Salmonella in All Foods to AOAC Culture Method: Collaborative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six foods representative of a wide variety of processed, dried powder processed, and raw food types were analyzed by the Assurance Gold Salmonella Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA) and AOAC INTERNATIONAL culture method. Paired samples of each food type were simultaneously analyzed; one sample by the Assurance method and one by the AOAC culture method. The results for Assurance method were read visually and instrumentally with a microplate reader. A total of 24 laboratories representing federal government agencies and private industry, in the United States and Canada, participated in this collaborative study. Food types were inoculated with species of Salmonella with the exception of raw ground chicken, which was naturally contaminated. No statistical differences (p < 0.05) were observed between Assurance Gold Salmonella EIA with either visual or instrumental interpretation and the AOAC culture method for any inoculation level of any food type or naturally contaminated food. The Assurance visual and instrumental options of reading sample reactions produced the same results for 1277 of the 1296 sample and controls analyzed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".