Comparison of Immunoblot and Immunofluorescence in Detecting Pemphigus Vulgaris Antibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the clinical value of immunoblot and immunofluorescence in detecting pemphigus vulgaris antibody,we used recombinant pemphigus vulgaris antigen (PVA EC1 2) fusion protein as substrate to detect autoantibodies in 25 cases of sera from patients with PV by immunoblot,direct and indirect immunofluorescence 21 cases (84%),20 cases (80%),and 18 cases (72%) were positive in immunoblot,in direct and in indirect immunofluoresence respectively All the normal persons were negative The results showed that immunofluoresence was important in diagnosing and identification diagnosing to PV patients Using the PVA EC1 2 fusion protein as substrate to detect autoantibodies of sera from patients with PV by immunoblot had a similar sensitivity to immunofluorescence
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".