Determination of Antibody Responses to Meningococcal Antigens by ELISA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, EIA) is a highly versatile and sensitive technique that can be used for quantitative as well as qualitative determination of almost any antigen or antibody. Reagents are stable, non-radioactive and, in most cases, commercially available. Owing to the simplicity and versatility of the method, ELISA represents probably one of the most used methods for studying antibody responses and antibody levels. Since Engvall and Perlman's first paper describing the ELISA in 1971 (1), almost all laboratories working in serology or immunology have designed their own assays with different protocols for coating with antigens, incubation conditions, detecting systems, and ways of reporting of the results. In most cases, there is no need for strict interlaboratory standardization of ELISAs and each laboratory will develop a system that suits their needs. However, for some ELISAs, e.g., used in diagnostic laboratories and in vaccine trials, standardization is important, and this is considered in "Meningococcal Disease" Edited by AJ Pollard and MCJ Maiden, (1a).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".