Performance of Five Serological Assays for Diagnosis of<i>Rhodococcus equi</i>Pneumonia in Foals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of four enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) (ELISA-6939, ELISA-33701, ELISA-VapA, and ELISA-California) and an agar gel immunodiffusion test for diagnosis of Rhodococcus equi pneumonia in foals was evaluated. Antibody concentrations of foals with culture-confirmed R. equi pneumonia (n = 41) were compared to those of age-matched pasturemates that remained clinically healthy during the entire breeding season (n = 24). For each serological assay evaluated, selection of a low cutoff resulted in high sensitivity but low specificity. Increasing the cutoff value resulted in better specificity but to the detriment of sensitivity. The best diagnostic performance was achieved with ELISA-California at a cutoff of 40%, resulting in a sensitivity of 59% and a specificity of 88%. We conclude that current serological assays do not differentiate between diseased and clinically healthy foals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".