MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139873788 · doi:10.1099/jmm.0.45927-0

Diagnosis of human brucellosis caused by Brucella canis

2005· article· en· W2139873788 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nidia E. Lucero, Gabriela I. Escobar, Sandra M. Ayala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsBrucellosisSerologyBrucellaCanisAsymptomaticMedicineDirect agglutination testBrucellaceaePopulationImmunologyInternal medicineBiologyAntibodyBrucella melitensis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transmission of Brucella canis to man commonly occurs through contact with infected dogs or their secretions, or through direct laboratory exposure. The disease is underdiagnosed due to a general lack of serological testing facilities and misconceptions concerning its prevalence. This report shows the potential use of an indirect ELISA (IELISA) for the diagnosis of human brucellosis caused by B. canis in a population of patients negative by smooth-Brucella antigen tests but positive by rapid slide agglutination test (RSAT). One hundred and ten sera from asymptomatic people found negative by tests using smooth Brucella abortus antigen and by RSAT showed an IELISA specificity of 100 % when a cut-off value of 27 % positivity (%P) was selected. For 17 sera from patients with positive B. canis culture or in close contact with culture-positive dogs, the IELISA sensitivity was 100 % with the same cut-off value. The positive patients presented clinical symptoms similar to brucellosis caused by other species of Brucella and some of them received antibiotic treatment and made good progress. Using this cut-off value, we studied 35 patients with negative blood cultures but positive RSATs, and IELISA detected 18 as positive; of the 17 IELISA-negative, two were RSAT-positive at dilution 1 : 2 and 15 were weakly positive with pure serum. These samples were probably from patients at an early stage of infection or indicate false-positive results. No cross-reaction was observed among the sera from nine cases with a diagnosis other than brucellosis, but cross-reactivity was evident in sera from patients infected with smooth-Brucella species. Since routine brucellosis diagnosis does not include B. canis investigation, infection with this species may be more widespread than is currently suspected. The RSAT could be a suitable screening test for the diagnosis of B. canis human brucellosis, and a supplementary technique, such as IELISA, performed on all positive RSAT samples that were negative by B. abortus antigen could ensure diagnostic specificity and confirm the diagnosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations116
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical MicrobiologySame topicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatmentFrench-language works237,207