MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410200663 · doi:10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100529

Comparison of Methods for Extraction of Infectious Influenza Virus from Raw Milk Cheeses

2025· article· en· W4410200663 on OpenAlexaffabout
Madeleine Blondin-Brosseau, Wanyue Zhang, Caroline Gravel, Jennifer Harlow, Xuguang Li, Neda Nasheri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Protection · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaw milkVirusVirologyExtraction (chemistry)Food scienceBiologyMicrobiologyChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 viruses have spread widely among birds and multiple mammal species. The HPAI spillover to dairy cattle, and its excretion in milk in high-titers has created a new interface for human exposure and has raised food safety concerns. Multiple lines of evidence show that pasteurization is effective in inactivation of influenza viruses. In Canada, dairy products must be pasteurized with the exception of cheese. Since influenza viruses were not considered as foodborne, there is no data available regarding their survival in cheeses and no standard method exists for their extraction from food commodities, including dairy products. Herein, we examined the efficacy of multiple methods for the extraction of infectious H1N1 virus (as a representative for type A influenza viruses) from cream cheese made from unpasteurized milk. We used murine norovirus (MNV) as a surrogate for human norovirus and also as a process control virus and examined the efficacy of the employed methods by plaque assay. The limit of detection for the two best-performing methods was determined using a variety of soft and firm raw-milk cheeses. The described methods assist health authorities for the surveillance of foodborne viruses in dairy products.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ProtectionSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207