Risk Assessment for Enteric Pathogens in the Biosafety Level 2 Laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is some general confusion regarding when to use a biological safety cabinet (BSC) to minimize risk from aerosol formation in Biosafety Level 2 (BSL'2) laboratories that handle enteric pathogens. A risk assessment was conducted to determine the risk involved in performing some standard microbiological manipulations. Although enteric organisms are not known to be infectious via inhalation, it was felt ingestion of droplets deposited around the work area may cause laboratory-acquired infection. Manipulations of Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Escherichia coli 0157, and other E. coli have resulted in laboratory-acquired infection due to improper laboratory technique. Routine procedures, for example opening screw-capped bottles and wet petri dish covers, improper use of needle and septum, streaking plates, pipetting, slide agglutination, and microscopic preparations, were found to have potential to cause aerosol formation. Proper microbiological technique in combination with primary containment devices (e.g., biological safety cabinets) has been found to reduce the risk of laboratory-acquired infections when working with enteric pathogens. Laboratory workers must ensure that they use any means available to minimize these risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".