Multi-Laboratory Validation of a Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Method for Screening Salmonella in Animal Food
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) has gained wide popularity in the detection of Salmonella in foods owing to its simplicity, rapidity, and robustness. This multi-laboratory validation (MLV) study aimed to validate a Salmonella LAMP-based method against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) Chapter 5 Salmonella reference method in a representative animal food matrix (dry dog food). Fourteen independent collaborators from seven laboratories in the U.S. and Canada participated in the study. Each collaborator received two sets of 24 blind-coded dry dog food samples (8 uninoculated; 8 inoculated at a low level, 0.65 MPN/25 g; and 8 inoculated at a high level, 3.01 MPN/25 g) and initiated the testing on the same day. The MLV study used an unpaired design where different test portions were analyzed by the LAMP and BAM methods using different preenrichment protocols (buffered peptone water for LAMP and lactose broth for BAM). All LAMP samples were confirmed by culture using the BAM method. BAM samples were also tested by LAMP following lactose broth preenrichment (paired samples). Statistical analysis was carried out by the probability of detection (POD) per AOAC guidelines and by a random intercept logistic regression model. Overall, no significant differences in POD between the Salmonella LAMP and BAM methods were observed with either unpaired or paired samples, indicating the methods were comparable. LAMP testing following preenrichment in buffered peptone water or lactose broth also resulted in insignificant POD differences (P > 0.05). The MLV study strongly supports the utility and applicability of this rapid and reliable LAMP method in routine regulatory screening of Salmonella in animal food.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".