Comparison of the complement fixation test and competitive ELISA for serodiagnosis of Anaplasma marginale infection in experimentally infected steers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare sensitivity of a complement fixation (CF) test and competitive ELISA (cELISA) for detection of Anaplasma marginale in experimentally infected steers. ANIMALS: 40 crossbred (Angus-Simmental) steers. PROCEDURES: Steers were inoculated with 2.6 x 10(9) A marginale-infected erythrocytes (day 0). Blood samples were collected on days 9, 13, 20, 28, 34, 41, 61, 96, 126, and 156 days after inoculation. The percentage of parasitized erythrocytes (PPE) was determined by microscopic examination of stained blood films, and sera were evaluated with the CF test and cELISA by use of USDA-approved methods. Sensitivity and agreement (kappa statistic) between the 2 methods were determined. Persistent infections were confirmed by inoculation of blood obtained from infected steers into susceptible, splenectomized calves. RESULTS: 9 days after inoculation, sensitivity of the cELISA was 47.5%, whereas the CF test failed to identify seropositive steers. After day 13, sensitivity of the cELISA and CF test was 100% and 20%, respectively. During peak parasitemia (day 20), sensitivity of the cELISA and CF test was 100%. Thereafter, sensitivity of the CF test fluctuated between 7.5% and 37.5%, whereas sensitivity of the cELISA remained at 100%. Overall sensitivity of the cELISA and CF test was 94.8% and 26.5%, respectively (kappa statistic, 0.039). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The cELISA had superior sensitivity for serologic detection of A marginale. The CF test and cELISA each had a high percentage of false-negative results during the prepatent period. These findings are relevant for export certification and anaplasmosis prevention or eradication programs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".