Standards for the assay of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assays for the agent of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) include measurement of infectivity in different animal systems, such as wild-type or transgenic mice, and detection of PrP(Sc) by different methods and formats. The various assays could be best calibrated against each other by use of uniform readily available materials, and samples of four human brains, two from sporadic CJD patients, one from a variant CJD patient and one from a non-CJD patient, have been prepared as 10% homogenates dispensed in 2000 vials each for this purpose. Results of in vitro methods, particularly immunoblot assays, were compared in the first collaborative study described here. While dilution end-points varied, the minimum detectable volume was surprisingly uniform for most assays and differences in technical procedure, other than the sample volume tested, had no detectable systematic effect. The two specimens from sporadic CJD cases contained both type 1 and type 2 prion proteins in approximately equal proportions. The materials have been given the status of reference reagents by the World Health Organization and are available for further study and assessment of other in vitro or in vivo assay procedures.
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 | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
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".