Phenotypic and Genetic Analysis of Diarrhea‐Associated <i>Escherichia coli</i> Isolated From Children in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background A hospital‐based study was performed to (1) compare phenotypic and genotypic diagnostic tests for enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, enteroaggregative E. coli, and diffuse‐adhering E. coli (collectively termed adherent E. coli) and (2) to assess the importance of these different classes of adherent E. coli as causes of infant diarrhea in the United Kingdom in comparison with other enteropathogens. Methods E. coli isolated from 1,496 infants with diarrheal disease and from 546 age‐related controls were screened for enteropathogenic E. coli, enteroaggregative E. coli, and diffuse‐adhering E. coli using HEp‐2 cell adherence assays and DNA probes. Results Marked discrepancies between the phenotype and genotype of isolates indicate significant heterogeneity among enteroaggregative E. coli and diffuse‐adhering E. coli strains. Depending on the assay used, adherent E. coli were isolated as the only putative pathogen in 23% to 27% of diarrhea cases, a significantly higher incidence than in the control group. Individually, enteroaggregative E. coli (8.5–8.6% of cases) and diffuse‐adhering E. coli (10.4–11.3% of cases), but not enteropathogenic E. coli (4.5–7.5% of cases), were significantly associated with diarrhea. Conclusions These studies indicate that adherent E. coli may be an important cause of diarrhea in infants in the United Kingdom; they also emphasize the need for more specific virulence‐based tests for these putative classes of “diarrheagenic” (diarrhea causing) E. coli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".