MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462851820 · doi:10.1021/bk-2007-0952.ch002

Detection and Quantification of Roundup Ready Soy in Food Samples using Conventional and Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

2006· book-chapter· en· W2462851820 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Rott, Tracy Lawrence, Margaret Green

Bibliographic record

VenueACS symposium series · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetically modified organismFood scienceFood productsSoy flourSoy beanBiotechnologyPolymerase chain reactionSoy proteinFood labelingBiologyGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transgenic soybean line GTS-40-3-2, marketed under the trade name Roundup Ready® (RR) Soy was first approved in North America for environmental release, feed products and food products in 1994 and has since been approved in many other countries around the world. Consumer concern issues with regards to genetically modified plants and plant products have resulted in mandatory labeling requirements in several countries for foods derived from genetically engineered crops. One requirement for labeling is the ability to detect and accurately quantify the amount of transgenic material present in foods. Two assays were evaluated. A conventional qualitative PCR assay to detect the presence of soy and RR soy and a real-time PCR to quantify the amount of RR soy present in samples that tested positive in the first assay. PCR controls consisted of certified RR soy reference material, single transgenic soybeans and a processed food sample containing a known amount of RR soy. To test real-world applicability, a number of common grocery store food items that contain soy based products were tested. For some samples, significant differences in amplification efficiencies during the quantitative PCR assays were observed compared to the controls, resulting in potentially large errors in quantification.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS symposium seriesSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207