Comparison of 3-day and 7-day recall periods for food consumption reference values in foodborne disease outbreak investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations into an outbreak of foodborne disease attempt to identify the source of illness as quickly as possible. Population-based reference values for food consumption can assist in investigation by providing comparison data for hypothesis generation and also strengthening the evidence associated with a food product through hypothesis testing. In 2014-2015 a national phone survey was conducted in Canada to collect data on food consumption patterns using a 3- or 7-day recall period. The resulting food consumption values over the two recall periods were compared. The majority of food products did not show a significant difference in the consumption over 3 days and 7 days. However, comparison of reference values from the 3-day recall period to data from an investigation into a Salmonella Infantis outbreak was shown to support the conclusion that chicken was the source of the outbreak whereas the reference values from a 7-day recall did not support this finding. Reference values from multiple recall periods can assist in the hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing phase of foodborne outbreak investigations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".