Inter-test reliability of the anti-RESA indices based on ELISA tests using eluates from whole blood spots dried on filter paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ring-infected erythrocyte surface antigen (RESA), is one of the falciparum malaria vaccine candidates rarely studied in Brazil. Fieldwork logistics to conduct serology studies is simplified when eluates from whole blood dried on filter paper can be used. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the inter-test reliability for the anti-RESA ELISA-based indices using eluates from filter paper and from serum samples. The study population consisted of 210 individuals (Brazil) from whom matched samples were collected. Anti-RESA ELISA-based index means (+/- S.D.) were 15.29% (+/-28.13%) for filter paper and 11.79% (+/-23.67%) for serum samples. The intra-class correlation coefficient was estimated to be 82.38%, indicating high test reliability. However, there was a significant tendency for filter paper test results to have higher values than serum sample test results (P < 0.001). Explanations for this finding may be the presence of haemoglobin in the eluates from filter paper, which may interfere with ELISA testing.
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".