Evaluation of the 3M™ Molecular Detection Assay (MDA) 2 – Listeria monocytogenes for the Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in a Variety of Foods and Select Environmental Surfaces: Collaborative Study, First Action 2016.08
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 3M™ Molecular Detection Assay (MDA) 2 - Listeria monocytogenes uses loop-mediated isothermal amplification of unique DNA target sequences combined with bioluminescence to rapidly detect Listeria monocytogenes in a broad range of food types and on environmental surfaces. Using an unpaired study design, technicians from 13 laboratories located in the United States and Canada compared the 3M MDA 2 - Listeria monocytogenes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Service Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook Chapter 8.09 "Isolation and Identification of Listeria monocytogenes from Red Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products, and Environmental Samples" reference method for the detection of L. monocytogenes in deli turkey and raw chicken breast fillet. Each matrix was evaluated at three levels of contamination: an uninoculated control level (0 CFU/test portion), a low inoculum level (0.2-2 CFU/test portion), and a high inoculum level (2-5 CFU/test portion). Statistical analysis was conducted according to the probability of detection (POD) statistical model. Results obtained for the low inoculum level test portions produced a difference in the collaborating laboratory POD (dLPOD) value of 0.04 with a 95% confidence interval of (-0.08, 0.17) for deli turkey, indicating that the difference between methods was not statistically significant at the 0.05 probability level. For raw chicken breast fillet, a dLPOD value of 0.16 with a 95% confidence interval of (0.04, 0.28) indicated a statistically significant difference, with an observed higher proportion of positive results by the candidate method compared to the reference method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".