Two risk assessments: Evaluating the use of indicator HF183 Bacteroides versus pathogen measurements for modelling recreational illness risks in an urban watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of HF183 Bacteroides for estimating pathogen exposures during recreational water activities. We compared the use of Bacteroides-based exposure assessment to exposure assessment that relied on pathogen measurements. We considered two types of recreational water sites: those impacted by combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and those not impacted by CSOs. Samples from CSO-impacted and non-CSO-impacted urban creeks were analysed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for HF183 Bacteroides and eight human gastrointestinal pathogens. Exposure assessment was conducted two ways for each type of site (CSO-impacted vs. non-CSO impacted): 1) by estimating pathogen concentrations from HF183 Bacteroides concentrations using published ratios of HF183 to pathogens in sewage and 2) by estimating pathogen concentrations from qPCR measurements. QMRA (quantitative microbial risk assessment) was then conducted for swimming, wading, and fishing exposures. Overall, mean risk estimates varied from 0.27 to 53 illnesses per 1,000 recreators depending on exposure assessment, site, activity, and norovirus dose-response model. HF183-based exposure assessment identified CSO-impacted sites as higher risk, and the recommended HF183 risk-based threshold of 525 genomic copies per 100 mL was generally protective of public health at the CSO-impacted sites but was not as protective at the non-CSO-impacted sites. In the context of our urban watershed, HF183-based exposure assessment over- and under-estimated risk relative to exposure assessment based on pathogen measurements, and the etiology of predicted pathogen-specific illnesses differed significantly. Across all sites, the HF183 model overestimated risk for norovirus, adenovirus, and Campylobacter jejuni, and it underestimated risk for E. coli and Cryptosporidium. To our knowledge, this study is the first to directly compare health risk estimates using HF183 and empirical pathogen measurements from the same waterways. Our work highlights the importance of site-specific hazard identification and exposure assessment to decide whether HF183 is applicable for monitoring risk.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".