A proficiency testing method for detecting antibodies against Brucella abortus in quantitative and qualitative serological tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proficiency testing panel for detecting antibodies against Brucella abortus was developed and evaluated by both primary binding and conventional serological tests, using the guidelines of the World Organisation for Animal Health and the International Organization for Standardization Guide 43-1. All serological tests were judged satisfactory. Among the primary binding tests, the competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA 2) and the indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA 1), with standard deviation indices (z-scores) of -0.06 and 0.10, respectively, performed best. Similarly, E(n) numbers (i.e. a way of comparing different measurements of performance) of 0 for both the competitive ELISA 2 and the indirect ELISA 1 indicated that these tests performed best in the initial round of proficiency testing. The conventional serological tests all passed the panel. Comparing data from both the quantitative and qualitative tests demonstrated that this proficiency testing scheme was fit for the purpose for which it was designed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".