Application of a Direct Flow Cytometric Erythrocyte Immunofluorescence Assay in Dogs with Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia and Comparison to the Direct Antiglobulin Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A direct flow cytometric erythrocyte immunofluorescence assay (FC) was developed and compared with the direct antiglobulin test (DAT) for detection of erythrocyte-bound immunoglobulin (IgG and IgM) and complement (C3) in dogs with immune-mediated hemolytic anemia (IMHA). Tests were performed on erythrocytes from 13 healthy nonanemic dogs and from 13 anemic dogs with IMHA. The FC and DAT were negative for erythrocyte-bound immunoglobulin in all healthy dogs. The FC was negative for erythrocyte-bound C3 in 12 healthy dogs and positive in 1 healthy dog, and the DAT was negative for C3 in all healthy dogs. Of the 13 IMHA dogs tested for erythrocyte-bound IgG, 12 were positive using the FC and 7 were positive using the DAT. Sensitivity for the detection of erythrocyte-bound IgG in the 26 dogs was 92% for FC and 53% for DAT. Specificity for detection of erythrocyte bound IgG for FC and DAT was 100%. The addition of IgM and/ or C3 did not increase the sensitivity for FC or DAT. In this group of dogs, the FC provided a more rapid, cost-effective, sensitive, objective method to quantitate erythrocyte-bound immunoglobulin and/or complement compared with the currently used DAT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".