Comparison of lethal versus non-lethal sample sources for the detection of infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) in Canada and the USA has led to the establishment of ISAV surveillance programs for cultured Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) and wild fish species, including Atlantic salmon. Current testing procedures for ISAV consist of viral culture, reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and indirect fluorescent antibody testing (IFAT), and require lethal sampling. As the focus of this study, blood was evaluated as a possible non-lethal sample source for ISAV diagnostic screening by viral culture and RT-PCR. Tissue samples (consisting of kidney/spleen for viral culture or kidney only for RT-PCR), blood and, to a lesser extent, mucus were tested from Atlantic salmon survivors of laboratory ISAV infection trials and moribund fish from marine salmon grow-out facilities participating in a USDA-sponsored surveillance program. The trial fish represented a potential carrier population, while the surveillance fish were composed of moribund individuals from ISA clinical sites. Sample sources and diagnostic techniques were compared. Blood compared well to tissue samples for viral culture and produced a greater number of positives than did kidney samples for ISAV detection by RT-PCR. RT-PCR using both kidney and blood samples was determined to be a more sensitive assay than viral isolation. Mucus did not perform well in either assay compared to the other sample sources. Blood appears to be a reliable non-lethal sample source for the detection of ISAV by viral culture and RT-PCR in both moribund and asymptomatic fish.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".