MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002863550 · doi:10.7589/0090-3558-47.1.12

FILTER-PAPER BLOOD SAMPLES FOR ELISA DETECTION OF BRUCELLA ANTIBODIES IN CARIBOU

2011· article· en· W2002863550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Diseases · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsGovernment of NunavutCanadian Food Inspection AgencyGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNasivvik Centre for Inuit Health and Changing EnvironmentsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBrucellosisBrucellaBiologyHerdAntibodyVeterinary medicineGold standard (test)MicrobiologyImmunologyAnimal scienceInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated blood collected on Nobuto filter-paper (FP) strips for use in detecting Brucella spp. antibodies in caribou. Whole blood (for serum) and blood-saturated FP strips were obtained from 185 killed arctic caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus). Sample pairs (serum and FP eluates) were simultaneously tested in duplicate using competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (c-ELISA) and indirect ELISA (i-ELISA) for Brucella spp. Prior work based on isolation of Brucella spp. revealed sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) of 100% and 99%, respectively, for both these serum assays in caribou. Infection status of the animals in the current study was unknown but recent sampling had revealed clinical brucellosis and >40% Brucella antibody prevalence in the herd. To assess the performance of FP relative to serum in these assays, serum was used as the putative gold standard. On both assays, the findings for duplicate runs (A and B) were similar. For c-ELISA run A, the FP Brucella prevalence (47%) was lower than serum prevalence (52%), with SE 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82-95%) and SP 99% (97-100%). For i-ELISA run A, serum and FP Brucella prevalence rates were identical (43%), and the SE and SP of FP testing were 100% and 99% (97-100%), respectively. The findings suggest better FP test performance with i-ELISA than with c-ELISA; however, i-ELISA does not distinguish cross-reacting antibodies induced by Brucella vaccination or exposure to certain other Gram-negative pathogens. Results for duplicate FP eluates (prepared using separate FP strips from each animal) were strongly correlated for both protocols (r=0.996 and 0.999 for c-ELISA and i-ELISA, respectively), indicating minimal variability among FPs from any individual caribou. Dried caribou FP blood samples stored for 2 mo at room temperature are comparable with serum for use in Brucella spp. c-ELISA and i-ELISA. Hunter-based FP sampling can facilitate detection of disease exposure in remote regions and under adverse conditions, and can expand wildlife disease surveillance across temporospatial scales.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.227 · 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