MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409858335 · doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0555

Assessment of the 16S‐23S rDNA Intergenic Spacer Region in <i>Enterococcus</i> spp. for Microbial Source Tracking

2007· article· en· W2409858335 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jerold W. Dickerson, J. Brooks Crozier, C. Hagedorn, Albert Hassall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFecal contamination and water quality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
KeywordsBiologyLinear discriminant analysis23S ribosomal RNAIntergenic region16S ribosomal RNAVeterinary medicineStatisticsMathematicsGeneticsBacteriaMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new library-based microbial source tracking (MST) approach intended for initial application in the coastal waters of Virginia was evaluated. Host-origin isolates of Enterococcus spp. were collected from beaches and the surrounding tidewater region of Virginia and used to construct a library based on the pattern of DNA band lengths produced by the amplification of the 16S-23S rDNA intergenic spacer (IGS) region, and subsequent digestion with MboI. Initial results from small host-origin libraries (64 and 200 total isolates) with discriminant analysis (DA) and logistic regression (LR) yielded high average rates of correct classification (ARCC) for a four-source classification split (birds, dogs, sewage, and wildlife), with ARCCs ranging from 83 to 100%. However, the poor results obtained when classification was attempted on a non-library validation set (VS, ARCCs of 47 and 48%, respectively, using DA and LR) demonstrated that a library of 200 isolates was insufficient to adequately represent the diversity of the enterococci in the sampled region. An increase in the library size to 1029 total isolates was accompanied by a reduction in the ARCC of the library to 42.7% with DA and 45.7% with LR, plus similarly poor results obtained from the VS. The low correct classification rates generated by the larger known-source library were unsuitable for field application. Many reported MST methods have been based on results obtained using small host-origin libraries without external validation. Our results indicate that such an approach can be very misleading, and that larger libraries and external validation is essential for the confirmation of preliminary 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicFecal contamination and water qualityFrench-language works237,207