MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W110832948 · doi:10.20506/rst.23.3.1532

Comparison of serological tests for the detection of ovine and caprine antibody to Brucella melitensis

2004· article· fr· W110832948 on OpenAlexafffundabout
K. Nielsen, D. Gall, Peter G. Smith, S. Balsevicius, F Garrido Abellán, M DURAN FERRER, F. Biancifiori, A. Dajer, Expedito José de Albuquerque Luna, Luis Samartino, R. Bermudez, F.J. Martínez-Moreno, T. Renteria, Angélica Corral

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Scientifique et Technique de l OIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsComplement fixation testSerologyBrucella melitensisDirect agglutination testAntibodyBiologyPopulationBrucellosisBrucellaVirologyMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations62
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Scientifique et Technique de l OIESame topicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatmentFrench-language works237,207