Comparison of serological tests for the detection of ovine and caprine antibody to Brucella melitensis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (IELISA), the competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (CELISA) and the fluorescence polarisation assay (FPA) were evaluated with sera from sheep experimentally infected with Brucella melitensis and negative Canadian sheep. The sensitivity and specificity of the assays were as follows: IELISA: 91.7% and 97.6%, CELISA: 75.0% and 99.8% and FPA: 91.7% and 89.5%. Sera from the same experimental population were divided according to serological reaction in the rose bengal agglutination test (RBT) and the complement fixation test (CFT). Reactivity relative to the RBT positive and CFT positive sera were as follows: IELISA: 99.7%, CELISA: 93.2% and FPA: 99.1%. Since sera from goats with proven B. melitensis infection were not available, 699 sera from goats judged positive in the buffered antigen plate agglutination test (BPAT) and CFT and 982 BPAT/CFT negative Canadian goats were used. The sensitivity and specificity of the assays relative to the BPAT and CFT positive sera were: IELISA: 99.4% and 98.0%, CELISA: 95.4% and 97.1% and FPA: 92.7% and 99.8%.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it