Evaluation of unexpected positive results from a commercial ELISA for antibodies to PRRSV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unexpected positive results from the widely used IDEXX ELISA for the detection of antibodies to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) may confound investigations of the disease. Supplementing the ELISA with blocking agents and the use of IgG purified from serum samples had no effect on the unexpected positive results, suggesting that they were due to an antibody-antigen reaction. Simple competitive and blocking ELISAs were developed by modifying the IDEXX ELISA, and they and an indirect fluorescent antibody test (IFAT) were used to examine PRRSV antibodies in 33 antibody-negative, 88 antibody-positive and 73 unexpectedly positive sera. All the unexpectedly positive sera were negative by IFAT, and 89.0 per cent were negative by both the competitive and blocking ELISAs. The competitive ELISA (97.7 per cent) and the blocking ELISA (96.5 per cent) detected more positive sera than the IFAT (90.9 per cent). These results show that both ELISAs are capable of distinguishing positive and unexpectedly positive sera, and suggest that most of the unexpected positive signals are false-positives.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".