Comparison between Phage-ELISA and Phage Dot-Blot Assay Methods for the Detection of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen and its Antibodies in Human Serum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A modified phage-enzyme link immunosorbent assay (phage-ELISA) and a phage dot-blot assay specific for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and its antibody were developed by using phage display technology. The phage-ELISA and phage dot-blot assays enabled to detect HBsAg and anti-HBsAg in human sera, and compatible to commercial detection kit. The fusion phages were immobilized onto microtiter plate wells and nitrocellulose membrane sheets, then blocked with 10% milk diluent, and added with human serum at dilution of 1:5000. The absorbance at 405 nm was determined once the colour changes formed. The same human serum also applied on the commercial diagnostic kit for comparison. The statistical analysis was carried out using ANOVA and T Test (LSD) for variable comparison between phage-ELISA and phage dot-blot assays. Based on these studies, the phage-ELISA was found to be more sensitive compared to phage dot-blot assay as the detection of HBsAg in human sera was about 80% as compared to 51.7% by using phage dot-blot assay. Meanwhile, the sensitivity for detection of anti-HBsAg by using phage-ELISA was slightly higher which showed about 83.3%. However, the sensitivity of the assay was dropped almost half when using phage dot-blot assay. Therefore, they are practical to be used as a reliable alternative way for the detection HBsAg and its antibody in human sera.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".