Agreement between Three Serological Tests for <i>Neospora Caninum</i> in Beef Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 1999, serum samples were collected from beef cows on pastures in western Canada. Some of the herds had a history of confirmed abortions associated with Neospora caninum infection. All these samples were initially analyzed using a single application of 1 common commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for antibodies to N. caninum. From these initial results, 239 positive and 250 negative samples were randomly selected for further testing. This group of samples was retested using the 3 commercially available ELISA tests for N. caninum as per the manufacturer's recommendations. The agreement between 2 of the ELISAs was good (K = 0.76); agreement of these 2 tests with the third test was much lower (K = 0.46 and 0.60). Quantitative agreement between tests measured by intraclass correlation coefficients was also acceptable between the first 2 tests but was almost zero when the first 2 tests were compared with the third. This information is necessary to understand the differences in seroprevalence reported in different regions from laboratories using different methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".