MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Test characteristics from latent-class models of the California Mastitis Test

2006· article· en· W2101083155 on OpenAlexafffund
Carolyn J. Sanford, G.P. Keefe, Javier Sánchez, R.T. Dingwell, Herman W. Barkema, K.E. Leslie, Ian R. Dohoo

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Veterinary Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphHealth PEIUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPfizer
KeywordsMastitisMilkingHerdCalifornia mastitis testPredictive valueVeterinary medicineBacteriologyLatent class modelDairy cattleAnimal scienceMedicineBiologyIce calvingInternal medicineMathematicsLactationStatisticsMicrobiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated (using latent-class models) the ability of the California Mastitis Test (CMT) to identify cows with intramammary infections on the day of dry-off. The positive and negative predictive values of this test to identify cows requiring dry-cow antibiotics (i.e. infected) was also assessed. We used 752 Holstein-Friesian cows from 11 herds for this investigation. Milk samples were collected for bacteriology, and the CMT was performed cow-side, prior to milking on the day of dry-off. At the cow-level, the sensitivity and specificity of the CMT (using the four quarter results interpreted in parallel) for identifying all pathogens were estimated at 70 and 48%, respectively. If only major pathogens were considered the sensitivity of the CMT increased to 86%. The negative predictive value of the CMT was >95% for herds with major-pathogen intramammary-infection prevalence <15%, so that selective dry-cow therapy might be reasonable for such herds if cows were screened with the CMT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Veterinary MedicineSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207