Comparison of bacterial culture, polymerase chain reaction, and a mix-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of Salmonella status in grow-to-finish pigs in western Canada with a Bayesian approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among grow-to-finish pigs from 10 herds in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 23 (16%) of 144 fecal samples were culture-positive and 40 (28%) of 144 pigs were seropositive for Salmonella. With a Bayesian model specifying dependence between the 2 tests, the sensitivity (Se) of culture and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was 79% to 86%, depending on the cut-off value for the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Culture specificity (Sp) was assumed to be 100%; RT-PCR Sp was found to be 94%. The ELISA Se was 76% and 51% at optical density cut-off values ≥ 20% and ≥ 40%, respectively; the Sp was 94% at each cut-off value. The model showed some sensitivity to ELISA prior information, the ELISA Se being approximately 8% lower when informative prior information was specified in the model. When there was no adjustment for dependence between culture and RT-PCR, the posterior estimates for both culture and RT-PCR Se were 11% higher than with the conditional-dependence model and had considerably narrower probability intervals, which suggests that correlation between culture and PCR is important and should be adjusted for in future studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".