Heat resistance in <i>Escherichia coli</i> and its implications on ground beef cooking recommendations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study assessed the adequacy of the current cooking recommendations in relation to heat resistant Escherichia coli by evaluating eight potentially heat resistant E. coli strains (four generic and four E. coli O157:H7) along with AW1.7. The D60°C‐values for these strains varied from 1.3 to 9.0 min, with J3 and AW1.7 being the least and most heat resistant strains, respectively. The D60°C‐values for E. coli 62 and 68 were similar and were not affected by growth medium, while the heat resistance of C37, J3, and AW1.7 varied with the growth medium. When heated in extra lean ground beef (100 g) in vacuum pouches, the mean D54°C, D57°C, and D60°C‐values were 44.8, 18.6, and 2.9 min for C37, 13.8, 6.9, and 0.9 min for J3, and 40.5, 9.1, and 6.1 min for AW1.7. Burger temperatures continued to rise after being removed from heat when the target temperature was reached, by 3–5°C, and resting of 1 min would result in a destruction of 133, 374 and 14 log C37, J3 and AW1.7. These findings along with the very low occurrence of heat resistant E. coli expected in ground beef show that cooking ground beef to 71°C should be adequate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".