EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL ASSAYS FOR DETECTING WEST NILE VIRUS ANTIGEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two commercially available West Nile virus (WNV) detection assays (RAMP WNV test, Response Biomedical Corp., Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; and VecTest WNV antigen assay, Medical Analysis Systems, Inc., Camarillo, CA) were compared for sensitivity, specificity, and ability to detect WNV in field-collected mosquito pools. Serially diluted stock seed WNV and St. Louis encephalitis virus (SLEV) were used to determine sensitivity and specificity. The RAMP WNV test detected WNV at concentrations as low as 3.17 log10 plaque-forming units per milliliter (PFU/ml), whereas the VecTest assay detected WNV at concentrations as low as 5.17 log10 PFU/ml. Neither test cross-reacted with SLEV. A WNV-specific reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction was used to identify positives among field-collected mosquito pools. The RAMP WNV test detected 94% of positive pools and the VecTest assay detected 65% of the positive field-collected pools. Despite these differences, both assays have characteristics that make them useful in WNV surveillance programs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".