A COMPARISON OF FOUR SEROLOGIC ASSAYS IN SCREENING FOR BRUCELLA EXPOSURE IN HAWAIIAN MONK SEALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey for Brucella spp. antibodies was undertaken on 164 serum samples from 144 Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi) from the northwestern Hawaiian Islands collected between 1995 and 2002. The buffered antigen plate agglutination test (BPAT), the indirect enzyme immunoassay (I-ELISA), the competitive enzyme immunoassay (C-ELISA), and the fluorescence polarization assay (FPA) were compared with regard to their ability in detecting antibodies to Brucella spp. in the serum samples. Overall, antibodies were detected in 28 (17.1%) animals, using the BPAT test, 25 (15.2%) by the C-ELISA, and 19 (11.6%) in the I-ELISA and the FPA test, using thresholds established for cattle. No evidence of gross pathology consistent with clinical brucellosis was noted in any of the seropositive animals tested. Although further work would be necessary to validate these tests for use with monk seals it appears that both the C-ELISA and the FPA tests would be appropriate as diagnostic screening tests for detection of antibodies to Brucella spp. in this species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".