Preliminary evaluation of a quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for diagnosis of feline immunodeficiency virus infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has high sensitivity and specificity for detection of feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) antibodies, but does not distinguish between infection and vaccination. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays may distinguish infected from vaccinated cats. Performance of a commercial qPCR assay was assessed with blood samples from 29 FIV-infected non-vaccinated, 26 FIV-uninfected vaccinated and 35 FIV-uninfected non-vaccinated cats. FIV infection status of cats was assigned based on a combination of vaccination and medical history, prevention of contact with potentially infected cats and two FIV antibody ELISA results. Test sensitivity and specificity were determined against this gold standard. The qPCR test yielded positive results in samples from 23/29 FIV-infected non-vaccinated, 2/26 FIV-uninfected vaccinated and 0/35 FIV-uninfected non-vaccinated cats. It was concluded that the qPCR test was moderately sensitive and highly specific for the diagnosis of FIV infection, and that it may be suitable for ruling out FIV infection in cats with a positive antibody ELISA result and unknown vaccination history.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".