MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of the Binax and Biotest Urinary Antigen Kits for Detection of Legionnaires' Disease Due to Multiple Serogroups and Species of <i>Legionella</i>

2000· article· en· W1609672590 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegionellaLegionnaires' diseaseLegionella pneumophilaMicrobiologyAntigenVirologyBiologyUrineUrinary systemImmunoassayBacteriaAntibodyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Binax and the Biotest urinary antigen kits for the detection of Legionnaires' disease caused by organisms other than Legionella pneumophila were compared by testing 45 urine samples from non-Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 patients previously positive in a broad-spectrum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Eighteen were positive with the Binax kit, and 13 were positive with the Biotest. Although neither kit is as sensitive as ELISA, these results extend the number of serogroups and species of Legionella that can be diagnosed with the Binax or Biotest kit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.297 · 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