MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989230004 · doi:10.1080/15321819.2012.655823

QUANTITATIVE DOUBLE ANTIBODY SANDWICH ELISA FOR THE DETERMINATION OF GLIADIN

2012· article· en· W1989230004 on OpenAlexafffund
Naiyana Gujral, Mavanur R. Suresh, Hoon H. Sunwoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immunoassay and Immunochemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationAlberta Livestock and Meat Agency
KeywordsGliadinBiotinylationChemistryMonoclonal antibodyAntibodyChromatographyDetection limitGlutenMolecular biologyFood scienceBiologyBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sensitive double antibody sandwich ELISA (DAS-ELISA) based on chicken anti-gliadin IgY and biotinylated monoclonal antibody (mAb) was developed for the quantification of gliadin in foods. The anti-gliadin IgY and mAb specifically detected gliadin in wheat, barley, and rye by indirect ELISA and Western-blot assay. Using anti-gliadin IgY as capture antibody and biotinylated mAb as detecting antibody, the sensitivity of DAS-ELISA has a linear standard range of 4-40 ng/mL, showing that the limit of detection (LOD) corresponds to 4 ng/mL gliadin in assay buffer, equivalent to 0.8 ppm in foods. The intra-assay expressed as percentage of coefficients of variation (%CV) was 7.25% average of six food samples. The interassay precision was 9.51% in food samples. The combination of anti-gliadin IgY and biotinylated mAb in the DAS-ELISA provides a reliable, sensitive, and inexpensive tool for the detection of gliadin in gluten-free and gluten-containing food products.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Immunoassay and ImmunochemistrySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207