MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098749199

1 Characterization of Invasive Group B Streptococcus 1 from the Greater Toronto Area, Canada 2 3

2014· article· en· W7098749199 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPlant-Derived Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilocus sequence typingVirulenceStreptococcusGroup BTypingStreptococcus agalactiaeWhole genome sequencingStrain (injury)Streptococcaceae
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2 Abstract 20 We determined the capsular polysaccharide (CPS) type of 600 group B Streptococcus (GBS, also known 21 as Streptococcus agalactiae) strains recovered from patients with invasive infections in the Greater 22 Toronto Area, Canada, between 2009 and 2012. GBS strains of CPS type III were the most prevalent 23 among infants (44 % in early-onset disease, 75 % in late-onset disease), while type V strains were most 24 frequently isolated from adult patients (26 % in patients 19 years and older). We next investigated the 25 presence in our collection of GBS strains belonging to the hypervirulent multilocus sequence typing 26 clonal complex (CC)17. We used a PCR test described as specific for detection of CC17 strains which 27 targets the gene encoding the major virulence factor HvgA. We identified 91 hvgA-positive strains; of 28 them 88 were CPS type III, 2 were CPS type IV and 1 was CPS type V. Using whole genome sequencing 29 we show that the two hvgA-positive, CPS type IV strains are CC17 strains which underwent capsular 30 switching. However, sequence analysis revealed that the hvgA-positive, CPS type V strain does not 31

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant-Derived Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207