MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative field analyses of rapid analyte measurement platform and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays for West Nile virus surveillance

2009· article· en· W2132834123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Williges, Ary Farajollahi, Mark P. Nelder, Randy Gaugler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vector Ecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReverse transcriptaseWest Nile virusBiologyVirologyPolymerase chain reactionReverse transcription polymerase chain reactionAnalyteVirusMolecular biologyMessenger RNAGeneticsChromatographyGeneChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapid detection of West Nile virus (WNV) in mosquito pools is essential for predicting epizootics and epidemics. We compare the efficiency and sensitivity of the Rapid Analyte Measurement Platform (RAMP) to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from 2005 to 2008 from field mosquito populations in Mercer County, NJ. Overall, 316 pools tested negative and 115 pools tested positive for WNV. Eighty-nine pools tested positive using RAMP and all were confirmed by RT-PCR; 26 pools were WNV-negative using RAMP but positive using RT-PCR. False-positives from RAMP were not detected in our four-year study, indicating that RAMP is a reliable tool when used to augment existing RT-PCR-based WNV surveillance programs. Local mosquito control programs using RAMP will benefit from its ease of use, quick results, and lack of false positives but should understand the sensitivity of this test when compared to RT-PCR. Used with standard methods, RAMP will enhance existing mosquito control and WNV surveillance by providing rapid results and improved mosquito management decisions.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vector EcologySame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207