MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753835675 · doi:10.1128/jcm.00911-17

Multisite Evaluation of the BD Max Extended Enteric Bacterial Panel for Detection of Yersinia enterocolitica, Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli, Vibrio, and Plesiomonas shigelloides from Stool Specimens

2017· article· en· W2753835675 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia J. Simner, Margret Oethinger, Kathleen A. Stellrecht, Dylan R. Pillai, Ram Yogev, Helene Leblond, Joel E. Mortensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicYersinia bacterium, plague, ectoparasites research
Canadian institutionsBecton Dickinson (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlesiomonas shigelloidesYersinia enterocoliticaMicrobiologyVibrionaceaeEnterotoxigenic Escherichia coliAeromonasMedicineBiologyEscherichia coliEnterotoxinBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to perform a multisite evaluation to establish the performance characteristics of the BD Max extended enteric bacterial panel (xEBP) assay directly from unpreserved or Cary-Blair-preserved stool specimens for the detection of Yersinia enterocolitica , enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), Vibrio , and Plesiomonas shigelloides . The study included prospective, retrospective, and prepared contrived specimens from 6 clinical sites. BD Max xEBP results were compared to the reference method, which included standard culture techniques coupled with alternate PCR and sequencing, except for ETEC, for which the reference method was two alternate PCRs and sequencing. Alternate PCR was also used to confirm the historical results for the retrospective specimens and for discrepant result analysis. A total of 2,410 unformed, deidentified stool specimens were collected. The prevalence in the prospective samples as defined by the reference method was 1.2% ETEC, 0.1% Vibrio , 0% Y. enterocolitica , and 0% P. shigelloides . Compared to the reference method, the positive percent agreement (PPA) (95% confidence interval [CI]), negative percent agreement (NPA) (95% CI), and kappa coefficient (95% CI) for the BD Max xEBP assay for all specimens combined were as follows: ETEC, 97.6% (87.4 to 99.6), 99.8% (99.5 to 99.9), and 0.93 (0.87 to 0.99); Vibrio , 100% (96.4 to 100), 99.7% (99.4 to 99.8), and 0.96 (0.93 to 0.99); Y. enterocolitica , 99.0% (94.8 to 99.8), 99.9% (99.8 to 99.9), and 0.99 (0.98 to 1); P. shigelloides , 100% (96.4 to 100), 99.8% (99.5 to 99.9), and 0.98 (0.95 to 1), respectively. In this multicenter study, the BD Max xEBP showed a high correlation (kappa, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95 to 0.98) with the conventional methods for the detection of ETEC, Vibrio , Y. enterocolitica , and P. shigelloides in stool specimens from patients suspected of acute gastroenteritis, enteritis, or colitis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicYersinia bacterium, plague, ectoparasites researchFrench-language works237,207