An evaluation of Brix refractometry instruments for measurement of colostrum quality in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquisition of high quality colostrum is an important factor influencing neonatal calf health. Many methods have been used to assess the Ig concentration of colostrum; however, improved, validated evaluation tools are needed. The aims of this study were to evaluate both optical and digital Brix refractometer instruments for the measurement of Ig concentration of colostrum as compared with the gold standard radial immunodiffusion assay laboratory assessment and to determine the correlation between Ig measurements taken from fresh and frozen colostrum samples for both Brix refractometer instruments. This research was completed using 288 colostrum samples from 3 different farms. It was concluded that the optical and digital Brix refractometers were highly correlated for both fresh and frozen samples (r=0.98 and r=0.97, respectively). Correlation between both refractometer instruments for fresh and frozen samples and the gold standard radial immunodiffusion assay were determined to be very similar, with a correlation coefficient between 0.71 and 0.74. Both instruments exhibited excellent test characteristics, indicating an appropriate cut-off point of 22% Brix score for the identification of good quality colostrum.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".