MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024787415 · doi:10.1139/w06-027

Nested polymerase chain reaction for detection of pathogenic leptospires

2006· article· en· W2024787415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra Denize Dorneles Jouglard, Simone Simionatto, Fabiana K. Seixas, Fernanda Nassi, Odir Antônio Dellagostin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicLeptospirosis research and findings
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeptospirosisLeptospiraPolymerase chain reactionSerotypeZoonosisNested polymerase chain reactionBiologyPrimer (cosmetics)MicrobiologySerologyVirologyGeneGeneticsAntibodyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leptospirosis is a widespread zoonosis caused by pathogenic members of the genus Leptospira that has a great impact on human and veterinary public health. Early diagnosis of leptospirosis is important because severe lepto spiral infection can have a fulminant course. The available serological techniques for the diagnosis of leptospirosis have low sensitivity during the early stage of the disease. Efforts are being made to develop simpler, effective, efficient, and inexpensive diagnostic methods. In this work, we first evaluate a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based method for diagnosis of leptospirosis. Primers were designed to amplify a 264 bp region within the lipL32 gene that is conserved among pathogenic Leptospira and absent in nonpathogenic species. The sensitivity and specificity of the assay were evaluated using 7 saprophytic serovars, 37 pathogenic serovars, and 15 other microorganisms. The method was very specific for pathogenic serovars, however, it lacked sensitivity. To enhance the sensitivity, another primer pair was designed to amplify a 183 bp region within the 264 bp region of the lipL32 gene and was used in a nested PCR assay. This approach was much more sensitive than conventional PCR.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicLeptospirosis research and findingsFrench-language works237,207