Evaluation of the PrioCHECK™ Trichinella AAD Kit for the digestion and recovery of larvae in pork, horse meat and wild meat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The artificial digestion magnetic stirrer method using pepsin protease and hydrochloric acid is the standard assay for the detection of Trichinella larvae in muscle of infected animals. Recently, an alternative enzyme, serine protease, was employed in the development of a commercially available digestion kit (PrioCHECK™ Trichinella AAD Kit). This assay requires a higher digestion temperature of 60°C which kills the larvae during the digestion process, mitigating the risk of environmental contamination from the parasite. The present study was conducted to determine the performance of the PrioCHECK™ Trichinella AAD Kit compared to the conventional pepsin/HCl digestion. Replicate paired 115g samples of Trichinella-negative pork diaphragm and masseter, and of horse tongue and masseter, were used to compare the two methods for tissue digestibility. Similarly, paired 100g samples of pork diaphragm and horse tongue were spiked with proficiency samples containing known numbers of Trichinella spiralis first stage larvae to compare larval recoveries for the two methods. Masseter samples from wild bears and wolves naturally infected with Trichinella nativa or T6 were also used to compare the performance of the methods. The results of the study showed that the PrioCHECK™ Trichinella AAD Kit, when used according to the manufacturer's instructions, was effective in detecting Trichinella infection in all samples that contained 0.05 or more larvae per gram of tissue. Although there was no significant difference between the Kit method and the standard pepsin/HCl digestion procedure in the average number of larvae recovered from spiked pork diaphragm, 38% fewer larvae were recovered from similarly spiked samples of horse tongue by digestion using serine protease (one way ANOVA, P value <0.001). Additional clarification was also more often required for both horse meat and pork when using the Kit compared to the pepsin/HCl method. The results of testing wildlife samples were similar for the two methods. Overall, the performance of the Kit method was suitable for the digestion of muscle samples and recovery of Trichinella larvae, according to international standards. It also provides advantages of faster digestion, safer reagents and recovered parasites that are non-hazardous for analysts and the environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".