MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013005642 · doi:10.1016/j.crfs.2020.03.005

Comparison of pulsed light inactivation kinetics and modeling of Escherichia coli (ATCC-29055), Clostridium sporogenes (ATCC-7955) and Geobacillus stearothermophilus (ATCC-10149)

2020· article· en· W3013005642 on OpenAlexafffund
Dalia John, Hosahalli S. Ramaswamy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Research in Food Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClostridium sporogenesGeobacillus stearothermophilusEscherichia coliKineticsMicrobiologyClostridiumChemistryFood scienceBiologyBacteriaThermophileBiochemistryGenePhysicsGeneticsEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulsed light (PL) inactivation kinetics of Escherichia coli K-12, Clostridium sporogenes and Geobacillus stearothermophilus were evaluated under different treatment conditions. The PL system was factory set to operate at three pulses per second with a pulse width of 360 μs exposing samples placed on one of the 9 trays on a rack. Two PL parameters were evaluated in the study: number of pulses (a time factor) and the tray position (a spatial distance factor) both influencing the amount of light energy absorbed. As expected, the level of microbial inactivation increased with an increase in the number of pulses (from 1 to 15) and decreased with an increase in the Spatial distance (Tray # 1 to 9) away from the light source. Both the number of pulses and spatial distance as well as their interactions were found to have a significant effect (P < 0.05) on the extent of microbial inactivation. Vegetative cells of E. coli were most sensitive to PL treatment with a maximum 5 logarithmic reductions on Tray 1 after a 12-pulse treatment (4 s). G. stearothermophilus was more resistant to PL than C. sporogenes. Overall, the PL treatments (12–15 pulses) achieved a minimum four logarithmic reductions in the populations of all three microorganisms on the top tray at doses still below 12 J/cm2, the FDA-approved limit.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Research in Food ScienceSame topicListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFrench-language works237,207