MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325412245 · doi:10.2527/af.2016-0021

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and current trends in diagnostics

2016· article· en· W2325412245 on OpenAlexaff
Cheyenne C. Conrad, Kim Stanford, Tim A. McAllister, James Thomas, Tim Reuter

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Frontiers · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaLethbridge CollegeUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscherichia coliShiga toxinToxinMicrobiologyCurrent (fluid)BiologyGeneticsPhysicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are bacterial pathogens responsible for deadly foodborne outbreaks and sporadic illnesses globally. Children under five are most susceptible to severe complications and death. Seven main serogroups (O157 and top six non-O157: O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, O145) have been identified as causing the majority of STEC infections in humans. Beef products are one frequent source of infection, necessitating robust surveillance programs. However, detection and isolation methods for clinically relevant serogroups have several inherent limitations, making routine screening for these pathogens difficult and time consuming. These pathogens are constantly evolving, further allowing them to evade current detection methods. Developments in technology and genomic sequencing may improve our knowledge of these pathogens, thereby enhancing surveillance systems. With intensive beef production systems and a growing global demand for food, such advances are essential to improve food safety.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal FrontiersSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207