A Hazard Does Not Always Equate to a Risk: Cronobacter is a rare opportunistic pathogen and the greatest risk is only for a small sub-population of infants and only associated with powdered infant formula or human breast milk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cronobacter infections can result in a rare, but severe disease in infants and especially neonates. Powdered infant formula (PIF), formula for special medical purposes and human milk fortifiers are considered relevant for the exposure and risk of this organism. Recently, there have been a number of recalls due to the presence of Cronobacter spp. in infant cereals. These products are, however, generally not consumed by neonates or very young infants and there have been no reported Cronobacter infections in infants under the age of 12 months linked to the consumption of an infant cereal. Therefore, Cronobacter should not be considered a risk in these foods. The same reasoning can be followed for any other food product apart from PIF. The focus for Cronobacter control should be on PIF for infants less than 6 months of age, breast milk, and general hygiene in the environment and food preparation area for this age group, and even more so for newborns less than 2 months of age, premature infants and infants with weakened immune systems. • Cronobacter spp. can be isolated from many different environments and foods. • Control should focus on powdered infant formula and formula for special medical purposes. • Recalls of other food types results in unnecessary waste, costs and potential shortages without likely public health benefits.
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 | 0.010 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".