Performance analysis of rapid diagnostic tests on atypical bovine spongiform encephalopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preferred method to determine the prevalence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in a country is to use immunology-based rapid-tests. Though these tests are validated to detect C-type BSE disease-associated prion (PrP(sc)), test-specific properties may influence their ability to detect H- and/or L-type BSE PrP(sc), where both are atypical from C-type PrP(sc). Molecular characterization shows atypical BSE PrP(sc) to have a different sensitivity to proteinase activity and different affinities for certain prion-specific antibodies. It is important to understand how atypical BSE PrP(sc) may affect the performance of rapid-tests, which are typically dependent on the use of specific proteases and antibodies. The current study used experimentally generated C-, H-, and L-type BSE PrP(sc) to evaluate 3 tests used in various national BSE surveillance programs: an immunochromatographic assay, a standard sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (stndELISA), and a PrP(sc)-conformation-specific ELISA (confELISA). Although BSE PrP(sc) type had some effects on rapid-test performance, analytical sensitivity for atypical BSE PrP(sc) on all 3 platforms was not significantly compromised. When testing for atypical BSE PrP(sc), the 3 tests were able to meet the same requirements that the European Food Safety Authority set when evaluating the tests for C-type BSE PrP(sc).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".