Comparison of 4 Direct Coombs' Test Methods with Polyclonal Antiglobulins in Anemic and Nonanemic Dogs for In-Clinic or Laboratory Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Difficulties with the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) and its apparent lack of sensitivity and specificity for immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA) in dogs have raised skepticism regarding its diagnostic value. OBJECTIVE: To compare different DATs and other hematologic parameters in dogs. ANIMALS: Anticoagulated blood samples from 59 nonanemic and 46 anemic dogs (± IMHA) from a research colony and veterinary clinics. METHODS: Prospective observational study: Immunochromatographic strip, gel microcolumn, and capillary techniques were compared with standard microtiter DAT using 2 polyvalent antiglobulins. Spherocytosis, autoagglutination, osmotic fragility, and clinical data were assessed. RESULTS: Blood samples from all 59 nonanemic dogs were DAT-. Among 46 anemic dogs, 33 were suspected of IMHA, but only 20 were DAT+. Old and new DAT methods yielded comparable and consistent results even after storage of chilled blood samples for 1 week. Spherocytosis and autoagglutination (that did not persist after washing) were noted in 15 and 16 DAT+ dogs, respectively. The other 26 anemic dogs, including 21 previously transfused dogs and 4 with autoagglutination, tested DAT- by the other methods. Osmotic fragility was increased in 70% (19/27) of anemic and all 15 DAT+ dogs tested. Limited follow-up testing revealed DAT+ results for 3-70 days. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: The novel strip and capillary DAT methods are promising adjunct in-clinic tools. Despite prior immunosuppressive treatment and presence of autoagglutination, the DAT was positive in anemic dogs with IMHA. Transfusion did not cause false DAT+ results. Our results support DAT as a cornerstone in the diagnosis of canine IMHA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".