Ring test evaluation of the repeatability and reproducibility of a <i>Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus</i> oral fluid antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The precision of a Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) oral fluid antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was evaluated by calculating reliability coefficients for assay repeatability (within laboratory) and assay reproducibility (between laboratories). Randomly ordered oral fluid samples of known (n = 39) and unknown (n = 224) PRRSV antibody status were tested in 12 diagnostic laboratories. Each laboratory tested the samples twice, first using an antibody ELISA kit and reagents provided to them (phase 1) and then using an ELISA kit and reagents configured in their respective laboratory (phase 2). Repeatability (within laboratory) reliability coefficients calculated using results from samples of known PRRSV antibody status ranged from 0.724 to 0.997 in phase 1 and from 0.953 to 0.998 in phase 2. Reproducibility (between laboratories) reliability coefficients were calculated for 3 conditions: case 1--samples of unknown status (n = 224); case 2--samples of known status (n = 39), and case 3--all samples (n = 263). Among the 3 cases, reliability coefficients ranged from 0.937 to 0.964 in phase 1 and from 0.922 to 0.935 in phase 2. For case 3, it was estimated that 96.67% of the total variation in phase 1 and 93.21% in phase 2 could be attributed to the oral fluid samples themselves. Overall, the PRRSV oral fluid antibody ELISA was highly repeatable and reproducible. The current study supports the routine use of this test in laboratories providing diagnostic service to pig producers.
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 | 0.026 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".