A Suspension Array Immunoassay for the Toxin Simulant Ovalbumin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".