MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486722901 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.16-0110

Changing Patterns of Fungal Toxins in Crops: Challenges for Analysts

2016· review· en· W2486722901 on OpenAlexaff
J. David Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChemotypeAflatoxinMycotoxinPopulationFumonisinFusariumAgronomyBiotechnologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This short review discusses the need to manage climate-driven expansion of old toxins in new geographic areas (e.g., aflatoxin or fumonisin in corn in historically cooler areas, and ergot where rainfall and cropping patterns have changed). In addition, a renewed consideration of the toxins that can occur in feed sources used in cool-season dairy areas is needed (e.g., silage and distillers dry grains with solubles). A separate issue concerns genetic changes that are occurring in the species that cause Fusarium head blight/Gibberella ear rot. Small differences in climate appear to determine the distribution of the two dominant populations (native to the new world and from Asia). The chemotype that produces deoxynivalenol via the monoacetate at the 3 position results in the accumulation of somewhat more deoxynivalenol than the native population, which involves the monoacetate at the 15 position. There are also genetic changes occurring that have resulted in populations that produce different metabolites. Similarly, an increase in the area where Aspergillus flavus can thrive and the discovery of the sexual stage of this fungus have raised the potential of genetic change accelerated by climate. To address all these issues, new methods and increased availability of reference standards, as well as training and awareness, will be required.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207