MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044412493 · doi:10.1177/104063870301500216

Indirect Method for Prediction of Hemagglutination Inhibition Antibody Titers to Newcastle Disease Virus in Chickens by Titration of Antibodies in Egg Yolk

2003· article· en· W2044412493 on OpenAlexaff
Sang‐Geon Yeo, Éva Nagy, Peter J. Krell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewcastle diseaseYolkAntibodyTiterVirologyHemagglutination assayHemagglutinationAntibody titerBiologyVirusHaemagglutination inhibitionTitrationMicrobiologyImmunologyChemistrySerologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attempts were made to establish methods for indirect prediction of hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody titers to Newcastle disease virus (NDV) in sera of laying hens and day-old chicks by determining if these are correlated to HI titers in egg yolks. For this purpose, geometric means of HI antibody titers in sera from 60 hens, yolks from 60 matched eggs, and sera from 180 day-old chicks of an identical vaccination program were measured and plotted. There was a significant correlation between HI antibody titers in yolks (X) and hens (Y), with a linear regression of Y = 23.24 + 0.47X and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.65. The linear regression between HI antibody titers in yolks (X) and chicks (Y) was Y = 6.33 + 0.36X (r = 0.58). Immunity to NDV in hens and their offspring can be maintained effectively, and the proper time for the vaccination or booster can be determined by reference to HI titers predicted from the linear regression in the present study. The approach of testing egg yolk for HI titers provides a feasible alternative to determining HI titers from blood samples and eliminates stress in birds during blood sampling.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Diagnostic InvestigationSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207