Estimation of the repeatability and reproducibility of three diagnostic tests for infectious salmon anaemia virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), virus isolation (VI) and indirect fluorescent antibody tests (IFAT) are three assays currently used by the salmon industry to identify fish infected with infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV). However, no data are available on the repeatability (within-laboratory consistency) and reproducibility (between-laboratory consistency) of these assays and very limited information is available on the effect of freezing samples on test results. In order to evaluate these assays, five laboratories participated in a blinded study of 400 kidney samples representing four populations of farmed Atlantic salmon with different prevalence of ISAV. Each laboratory used its own testing protocols. Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated using kappa as the measure of agreement. The effect of freezing was evaluated using the McNemar test. Freezing did not affect VI but improved the sensitivity of RT-PCR. The repeatability and reproducibility of VI was almost perfect. There was a substantial difference in repeatability of RT-PCR among the three laboratories with kappa ranging from 0.5 to 0.96. The repeatability for RT-PCR was generally low. The repeatability of IFAT was moderate when the results were analysed using 1+ and above as a positive result. The results of the study show the need to standardize the protocol and interpretation of RT-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 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 | 0.032 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".