MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552819250 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.16-0235

Validation of the Applied Biosystems RapidFinder Shiga Toxin–Producing E. coli (STEC) Detection Workflow

2016· article· en· W2552819250 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Cloke, Sharon Matheny, Michelle Swimley, Robert S. Tebbs, Burrell Angelia, Jonathan Flannery, Benjamin Bastin, Patrick Bird, M Joseph Benzinger, Erin Crowley, James Agin, David Goins, Yvonne Salfinger, Michael H. Brodsky, María Cristina Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscherichia coliShiga toxinSTX2IntiminDNA extractionMicrobiologyBiologyPolymerase chain reactionGeneEnterobacteriaceaeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Applied Biosystems™ RapidFinder™ STEC Detection Workflow (Thermo Fisher Scientific) is a complete protocol for the rapid qualitative detection of Escherichia coli (E. coli) O157:H7 and the "Big 6" non-O157 Shiga-like toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) serotypes (defined as serogroups: O26, O45, O103, O111, O121, and O145). The RapidFinder STEC Detection Workflow makes use of either the automated preparation of PCR-ready DNA using the Applied Biosystems PrepSEQ™ Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit in conjunction with the Applied Biosystems MagMAX™ Express 96-well magnetic particle processor or the Applied Biosystems PrepSEQ Rapid Spin kit for manual preparation of PCR-ready DNA. Two separate assays comprise the RapidFinder STEC Detection Workflow, the Applied Biosystems RapidFinder STEC Screening Assay and the Applied Biosystems RapidFinder STEC Confirmation Assay. The RapidFinder STEC Screening Assay includes primers and probes to detect the presence of stx1 (Shiga toxin 1), stx2 (Shiga toxin 2), eae (intimin), and E. coli O157 gene targets. The RapidFinder STEC Confirmation Assay includes primers and probes for the "Big 6" non-O157 STEC and E. coli O157:H7. The use of these two assays in tandem allows a user to detect accurately the presence of the "Big 6" STECs and E. coli O157:H7. The performance of the RapidFinder STEC Detection Workflow was evaluated in a method comparison study, in inclusivity and exclusivity studies, and in a robustness evaluation. The assays were compared to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook (MLG) 5.09: Detection, Isolation and Identification of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from Meat Products and Carcass and Environmental Sponges for raw ground beef (73% lean) and USDA/FSIS-MLG 5B.05: Detection, Isolation and Identification of Escherichia coli non-O157:H7 from Meat Products and Carcass and Environmental Sponges for raw beef trim. No statistically significant differences were observed between the reference method and the individual or combined kits forming the candidate assay using either of the DNA preparation kits (manual or automated extraction). For the inclusivity and exclusivity evaluation, the RapidFinder STEC Detection Workflow, comprising both RapidFinder STEC screening and confirmation kits, correctly identified all 50 target organism isolates and correctly excluded all 30 nontarget strains for both of the assays evaluated. The results of these studies demonstrate the sensitivity and selectivity of the RapidFinder STEC Detection Workflow for the detection of E. coli O157:H7 and the "Big 6" STEC serotypes in both raw ground beef and beef trim. The robustness testing demonstrated that minor variations in the method parameters did not impact the accuracy of the assay and highlighted the importance of following the correct incubation temperatures.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207