MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324695182 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.govval10

MicroSEQ®Listeria monocytogenes Detection Kit

2013· article· en· W2324695182 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert S. Tebbs, Yan Cao, Priya Balachandran, Lily Y Wong, Olga Petrauskene

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 monocytogenesFood scienceSignificant differenceContaminationListeriaSampling (signal processing)BiologyVeterinary medicineMathematicsBacteriaMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Applied Biosystems Performance Tested MethodSM for detecting Listeria monocytogenes in food and environmental samples was compared to the Health Canada reference method (MFHPB-30) for the analysis of five ready-to-eat (RTE) meats (deli turkey, hot dogs, liver paté, deli ham, and raw fermented sausage) and a stainless steel environmental surface. The MicroSEQ® method includes the MicroSEQListeria monocytogenes Detection Kit and the option of two different sample preparation kits, either the automated high-throughput PrepSEQ™ Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit or the manual low- to mid-throughput PrepSEQ Rapid Spin Sample Preparation Kit. For each sample matrix, 20 replicates were analyzed at two inoculum levels: for RTE meats, a low-level inoculum at 0.2–2 CFU/25 g and a high-level inoculum at 2–5 CFU/25 g; and for environmental surfaces, a low-level inoculum at 0.2–2 CFU/5 cm2 sampling area and a high-level inoculum at 2–5 CFU/5 cm2 sampling area. Five control replicates were also analyzed at 0 CFU/25 g (uninoculated) for food or 0 CFU/5 cm2 sampling area for environmental surface. Both sample preparation methods returned identical results. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of positive samples detected by the MicroSEQ Listeria monocytogenes method and the MFHPB-30 reference method for four of the five RTE meats and the one stainless steel surface tested. For deli turkey, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of positive results detected by the MicroSEQ method and the Health Canada MFHPB-30 reference method for the low inoculation level, with the MicroSEQ method detecting more positives. Because the MicroSEQ method uses real-time PCR to detect pathogens, it provides faster time-to-results compared to culture methods while at the same time demonstrating equivalent detection. The MicroSEQ method detects L. monocytogenes within 2 to 3 h following 24 to 28 h enrichment compared to culture methods that take at least 5 days for presumptive positive results.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.026

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreMethods

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