MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900443937 · doi:10.1016/j.fawpar.2018.e00031

Prevalence and molecular characterization of Toxoplasma gondii DNA in retail fresh meats in Canada

2018· article· en· W2900443937 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Asma Iqbal, Nicol Janecko, Frank Pollari, Brent R. Dixon

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Waterborne Parasitology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicToxoplasma gondii Research Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaHealth Canada
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsToxoplasma gondiiGenotypingToxoplasmosisFecesBiologyIngestionVeterinary medicineFood safetyParasite hostingZoonosisGenotypeContaminated foodFood scienceVirologyMedicineMicrobiologyImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toxoplasma gondii is a protozoan parasite which infects a wide variety of mammals and birds worldwide, including humans. Human toxoplasmosis is primarily transmitted through the ingestion of tissue cysts in raw or poorly cooked meat and organs of infected animals, or through the ingestion of oocysts in food, water or soil contaminated with cat faeces. There is a distinct paucity of information on the prevalence and molecular characteristics of T. gondii in retail meats in Canada. This study reports the presence of T. gondii DNA in 4.3% (12 of 281) of packages of fresh ground beef, chicken breasts and ground pork purchased at retail in three Canadian provinces. T. gondii prevalence was very similar among all three meat types tested, and among the provinces sampled. Genotyping of positive samples by means of PCR-RFLP and DNA sequencing demonstrated the presence of both T. gondii type II (66.7%) and type III (33.3%). These findings provide baseline data on the prevalence of T. gondii DNA in fresh meats purchased at retail in Canada and will allow for more accurate and meaningful health risk assessments for the purposes of developing food safety guidelines and policies.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Waterborne ParasitologySame topicToxoplasma gondii Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207