MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313751186 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.govval07

iQ-Check Listeria monocytogenes II

2013· article· en· W2313751186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wendy F Lauer, Jean-Philippe Tourniaire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesContaminationListeriaFood scienceBiologyVeterinary medicineMedicineBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A comparative evaluation study of the Bio-Rad® iQ-Check™Listeria monocytogenes II Kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) was conducted at Q Laboratories, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. iQ-Check is a rapid method based on real-time PCR amplification and detection of L. monocytogenes in food and environmental samples. The iQ-Check method was compared to the Health Canada MFHPB-30 reference method for the analysis of five ready-to-eat meats—deli turkey, hot dogs, liver paté, raw fermented sausage, and deli ham—and one stainless steel surface. Each food matrix was analyzed at two contamination levels: a low level at 0.2–2 CFU/25 g and a high level at 2–5 CFU/25 g. The environmental surfaces were analyzed at a low level of 0.2–2 CFU/5 cm2 sampling area and a high level of 2–5 CFU/5 cm2 sampling area. There were 20 replicates per contamination level and five control replicates at 0 CFU/25 g or 0 CFU/5 cm2 sampling area (uninoculated). All samples detected by iQ-Check were subsequently confirmed by reference method protocol. There was no significant difference in the number of positive samples detected by the iQ-Check Listeria monocytogenes II Kit in comparison to the Health Canada MFHPB-30 method for all matrixes tested.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFrench-language works237,207