MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W29372163 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/85.4.996

Rapid Methods for Detection and Enumeration of Campylobacter spp. in Foods

2002· article· en· W29372163 on OpenAlexaff
Haiyan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnumerationCampylobacterBiologyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsBacteriaCombinatoricsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Campylobacter spp. are the most commonly reported bacterial cause of acute diarrheal disease in humans throughout the world. Traditional cultural methods for the detection and quantitation of Campylobacterspp. are slow and tedious; therefore, specific, sensitive, and rapid methods for campylobacters are needed to collect sufficient data for risk assessment and food safety policy development. We developed several rapid methods based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR), DNA hybridization, hydrophobic grid membrane filters (HGMFs), and enzyme immunoassays (EIAs). A PCR assay targeting C. jejuni, combined with a simple sample preparation procedure, detects as few as 0.3 most probable number (MPN)/mL C. jejuni in naturally contaminated chicken rinses after 20-24 h enrichment. An HGMF-EIA method using a commercial polyclonal antibody for Campylobacter detects and enumerates thermophilic Campylobacter spp. from spiked chicken rinse and milk, and naturally contaminated chicken rinses. A C. jejuni-specific probe in an HGMF-DNA hybridization protocol specifically detects and quantitates C. jejuni in food samples. A dot-blot EIA combined with an MPN procedure quantitates thermophilic campylobacters from samples that might be difficult to filter through HGMFs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207