Validation of Modifications to the ANSR® Listeria Method for Improved Ease of Use and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study was conducted to validate minor reagent formulation, enrichment, and procedural changes to the ANSR(®) Listeria method, Performance-Tested Method(SM) 101202. In order to improve ease of use and diminish risk of amplicon contamination, the lyophilized reagent components were reformulated for increased solubility, thus eliminating the need to mix by pipetting. In the alternative procedure, an aliquot of the lysate is added to lyophilized ANSR reagents, immediately capped, and briefly mixed by vortexing. When three foods (hot dogs, Mexican-style cheese, and cantaloupe) and sponge samples taken from a stainless steel surface were tested, significant differences in performance between the ANSR and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Bacteriological Analytical Manual or U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook reference culture procedures were seen with hot dogs and Mexican-style cheese after 16 h enrichment, with the reference methods producing more positive results. After 24 h enrichment, however, there were no significant differences in method performance for any of the four matrixes tested. Robustness testing was also conducted, with variations to lysis buffer volume, lysis time, and sample volume having no demonstrable effect on assay results. Accelerated stability testing was carried out over a 10-week period and showed no diminishment in assay performance. A second phase of the study examined performance of the ANSR assay following enrichment in a new medium, LESS Plus broth, designed for use with all food and environmental sample types. With the alternative LESS Plus broth, there were no significant differences in performance between the ANSR method and the reference culture procedures for any of the matrixes tested after either 16 or 24 h enrichment, although 24 h enrichment is recommended for hot dogs due to higher sensitivity. Results of inclusivity and exclusivity testing using LESS Plus broth showed that the ANSR assay is highly specific, with 100% expected results for target and nontarget bacteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".