Evaluation of diagnostic assays for the serological detection of <i>Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae</i> on samples of known or unknown exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of exposure to Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae is important for maintaining negative farms. In the present study, the ability of a dual-plate complement fixation (CF) assay and 3 commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs; quad-plate ELISA-1, single-plate ELISA-2, and single-plate ELISA-3) in detecting serological evidence of A. pleuropneumoniae exposure was compared using serum samples of experimentally infected or vaccinated pigs, or field samples from the United States. Forty-two pigs were divided into groups of 2 pigs and were inoculated with 1 of 15 A. pleuropneumoniae strains representing all known serovars of A. pleuropneumoniae, or with Actinobacillus suis, or were vaccinated with a bacterin containing A. pleuropneumoniae serovar 1, 3, 5, or 7. Serum samples collected at the day of inoculation or vaccination and 7, 14, 21, and 28 days later were used to compare the assays. On samples from experimentally infected pigs, the dual-plate CF assay, quad-plate ELISA-1, single-plate ELISA-2, and single-plate ELISA-3 had sensitivities of 0.46, 0.74, 0.13, and 0.13 and specificities of 0.90, 1.0, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively. Vaccinated pigs were identified only by the dual-plate CF assay and the quad-plate ELISA-1. In addition, 90 serum samples with unknown A. pleuropneumoniae exposure collected under field conditions were tested with all assays. The agreement of the 4 assays on field samples was slight to fair. While several assays are available for demonstration of A. pleuropneumoniae exposure, differences in assay targets complicate test choices. Decisions on which assay or combination of assays to use depend on the specific reasons for running the assays.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".