MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981967424 · doi:10.1080/15321810902782830

A Suspension Array Immunoassay for the Toxin Simulant Ovalbumin

2009· article· en· W1981967424 on OpenAlexaff
Hardeep S. Bhogal, Mark Snodgrass, Lori J. McLaws, Terrina Dickinson-Laing, David Mah, R. Elaine Fulton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immunoassay and Immunochemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsAg-West Bio (Canada)Defence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvalbuminImmunoassayChromatographyDetection limitChemistryReproducibilityMolecular biologyMultiplexAntibodyBiologyImmunologyAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A microsphere-based suspension array (SA) system was used for the development and characterization of an immunoassay for the toxin simulant ovalbumin. Results obtained by SA immunoassay were compared with those obtained by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using the same immunoreagents. The limit of detection (LOD) for the SA ovalbumin assay was 4.9 ng/mL, compared to a LOD of 0.01 ng/mL for the ovalbumin ELISA. Although the ELISA LOD exceeded that of the SA assay, the SA assay was simple and rapid to perform, with assays being completed in half the time of the traditional ELISA. The well-to-well reproducibility (coefficient of variation (CV)) of the ELISA and the SA assay was 4.9% and 5.1%, respectively. The ELISA and SA assay plate-to-plate reproducibility was 14.8% and 6.1%, respectively. The protocols used to develop the SA assay for ovalbumin may be used as a template for development of other SA assays for toxins, bacteria, and viruses.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Immunoassay and ImmunochemistrySame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207