Comparison of Two Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Diagnosis of <i>Mycobacterium Avium</i> Subsp. <i>Paratuberculosis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are used in Johne's disease (JD) control programs as a first screening for presence of the disease in a herd. A high sensitivity of the ELISA is therefore important, yet the commonly used ELISAs have relatively low sensitivity. The inclusion of an absorption phase, although improving specificity, potentially decreases sensitivity. Sera and feces of 383 adult dairy cows in 8 herds were used to compare the test characteristics of an absorbed and a nonabsorbed indirect ELISA for the detection of JD. The absorbed ELISA is based on a protoplasmic antigen, whereas the nonabsorbed uses a lipoarabinomannan-based antigen. The potential advantage of the nonabsorbed ELISA is that it may be less specific and more sensitive. Two herds certified free of JD were used to compare the specificity of the ELISAs. The other herds used to compare sensitivity were either infected with Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis or had unknown status. Using fecal culture as a gold standard, the diagnostic specificity for the absorbed and nonabsorbed ELISAs were 98.4% and 87.9%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity was 72.4% and 65.5% for the absorbed and the nonabsorbed ELISA, respectively. Furthermore, a comparison using a fecal DNA probe as the comparison standard resulted in both ELISAs having a sensitivity of 61.9%. Agreement between the 2 ELISAs was moderate, with a kappa statistic of 0.58. The nonabsorbed ELISA did not have a higher sensitivity and had a lower specificity than the absorbed ELISA. Therefore, in this population, there was no advantage gained with using the nonabsorbed ELISA.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".