These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21645822)

  • 1. The effect of the number of sample units tested on the precision of microbial colony counts.
    Jarvis B; Hedges AJ
    Food Microbiol; 2011 Sep; 28(6):1211-9. PubMed ID: 21645822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessment of measurement uncertainty for quantitative methods of analysis: comparative assessment of the precision (uncertainty) of bacterial colony counts.
    Jarvis B; Hedges AJ; Corry JE
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2007 May; 116(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 17316860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The contribution of sampling uncertainty to total measurement uncertainty in the enumeration of microorganisms in foods.
    Jarvis B; Hedges AJ; Corry JE
    Food Microbiol; 2012 Jun; 30(2):362-71. PubMed ID: 22365349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Lessons from the organization of a proficiency testing program in food microbiology by interlaboratory comparison: analytical methods in use, impact of methods on bacterial counts and measurement uncertainty of bacterial counts.
    Augustin JC; Carlier V
    Food Microbiol; 2006 Feb; 23(1):1-38. PubMed ID: 16942983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A critical review of measurement uncertainty in the enumeration of food micro-organisms.
    Corry JE; Jarvis B; Passmore S; Hedges A
    Food Microbiol; 2007 May; 24(3):230-53. PubMed ID: 17188202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Determining the microbiological criteria for lot rejection from the performance objective or food safety objective.
    Whiting RC; Rainosek A; Buchanan RL; Miliotis M; Labarre D; Long W; Ruple A; Schaub S
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2006 Aug; 110(3):263-7. PubMed ID: 16784791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Quantitative microbiological analysis--impacting factors as demonstrated with the aerobic plate count].
    Fries R
    Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2004 May; 111(5):188-92. PubMed ID: 15233336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Measurement uncertainty of the EU methods for microbiological examination of red meat.
    Corry JE; Hedges AJ; Jarvis B
    Food Microbiol; 2007 Sep; 24(6):652-7. PubMed ID: 17418317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Validation of NMKL method No. 136--Listeria monocytogenes, detection and enumeration in foods and feed.
    Loncarevic S; Økland M; Sehic E; Norli HS; Johansson T
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2008 May; 124(2):154-63. PubMed ID: 18472176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimates of measurement uncertainty from proficiency testing schemes, internal laboratory quality monitoring and during routine enforcement examination of foods.
    Jarvis B; Corry JE; Hedges AJ
    J Appl Microbiol; 2007 Aug; 103(2):462-7. PubMed ID: 17650207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On the compositing of samples for qualitative microbiological testing.
    Jarvis B
    Lett Appl Microbiol; 2007 Dec; 45(6):592-8. PubMed ID: 17908229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quantitative risk assessment: is more complex always better? Simple is not stupid and complex is not always more correct.
    Zwietering MH
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2009 Aug; 134(1-2):57-62. PubMed ID: 19171404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysing microbiological data: Tobit or not Tobit?
    Lorimer MF; Kiermeier A
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2007 May; 116(3):313-8. PubMed ID: 17382420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Microbiological quality of randomly selected ready-to-eat foods sampled between 2003 and 2005 in Wales, UK.
    Meldrum RJ; Smith RM; Ellis P; Garside J;
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2006 May; 108(3):397-400. PubMed ID: 16503065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Modern microbiological methods for foods: colony count and direct count methods. A review.
    García-Armesto MR; Prieto M; García-López ML; Otero A; Moreno B
    Microbiologia; 1993 Apr; 9(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 8397961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A collaborative study to evaluate qualitatively powdered baby food validation samples artificially contaminated with Salmonella anatum.
    Leuschner RG; Bew J; Boughtflower MP
    Int J Food Microbiol; 2004 Dec; 97(1):43-51. PubMed ID: 15527917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Comparison of direct colony count methods and the MPN-method for quantitative detection of Listeria in model and field conditions].
    Hildebrandt G; Schott W
    Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2001; 114(11-12):453-64. PubMed ID: 11766274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The determinacy of reproducibility assessments of qualitative microbial food borne pathogen methods detecting a few microbes per analytical portion.
    Hitchins AD
    Food Microbiol; 2011 Sep; 28(6):1140-4. PubMed ID: 21645812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Performance characteristics and estimation of measurement uncertainty of three plating procedures for Campylobacter enumeration in chicken meat.
    Habib I; Sampers I; Uyttendaele M; Berkvens D; De Zutter L
    Food Microbiol; 2008 Feb; 25(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 17993378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Study on maximum limits for Salmonella in milk and milk products].
    Wu T; Zhang LS; Li FQ; Ji R
    Wei Sheng Yan Jiu; 2006 Jan; 35(1):123-5. PubMed ID: 16598955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.