2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.06.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection probability of Campylobacter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
(4 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The difference from the system studied by Evers et al (18) is that Salmonella detection involves a preenrichment step. In our model this is accounted for by the introduction of a material-specific constant (r m ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The difference from the system studied by Evers et al (18) is that Salmonella detection involves a preenrichment step. In our model this is accounted for by the introduction of a material-specific constant (r m ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…A universal definition of the LOD for microbiological purposes has not yet been established (see e.g., Duarte et al 2015, Evers et al 2010. One popular operational definition in dilution series used by microbiologists is to define the LOD as 1 colony forming unit (CFU) for bacteria or algae, or 1 plaque forming unit (PFU) for viruses (e.g., see Evers et al 2010, Magnani 2021, Sutton 2011. We show that this definition may be too simplistic because it is not associated with any measure of statistical uncertainty (e.g., a confidence level).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One popular operational definition used by microbiologists is to define the LOD in the volume plated as 𝐿 plate = 1 CFU (seeEvers et al 2010, Magnani 2021, Sutton 2011) which, as pointed out above, is different than the recommended ranges for determining the number of colonies to count on a plate (e.g.,30-300;Ben-David and Davidson 2014). Under the Poisson model, this corresponds to 𝛽 = 0.37 (Table…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The replicates were then scored as either detectable (positive) or nondetectable (negative). In order to determine the sensitivity of the modified magnetic capture qPCR method, the oocyst-count dependent detection probability (Evers et al, 2010) was estimated by using a probit analysis in R (R Development Core Team, 2006) (supplementary material A). The probit model (Equation 2) assumes that the probability of detection is related to the log 10-transformed concentration data as the cumulative normal distribution.…”
Section: Data Analysis 2231 Detection Probability Of the Modified Magnetic Capture Qpcrmentioning
confidence: 99%