Effect of substrate selection on indirect immunofluorescence testing of canine autoimmune subepidermal blistering diseases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) of circulating antibodies in the serum of dogs with autoimmune subepidermal blistering diseases (AISBD) was regarded for a long time as an unrewarding tool. It was, however, demonstrated in humans that the sensitivity of IIF assays depended on the selection of the substrates used. The effects of substrate selection on IIF tests was thus studied by examining sera from 12 dogs with AISBD tested against 8 different substrates from 3 different normal dogs. Patients with AISBD suffered from bullous pemphigoid (n = 4 sera), mucous membrane pemphigoid (n = 4 sera), and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (n = 4 sera). Substrates included canine tongue, canine lip, canine dorsal haired skin, and ventral haired skin. The same 4 substrates were also split with salt splitting technique (using 1 M sodium chloride), in order to cleave the basement membrane within the lamina lucida and to expose the targeted antigens. The strength of the specific fluorescence of each slide was scored after processing for IIF testing with anti-canine IgG polyclonal antibody. Other criteria, such as background fluorescence, easiness of the interpretation, and variations within a same substrate, were also assessed. Intact canine lip and canine salt-split lip demonstrated consistently stronger intensity of fluorescence and a better ease of interpretation. We concluded that the performance of IIF tests with such substrates was a reliable tool for the detection of circulating IgG autoantibodies of canine patients with AISBD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".