MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409788228 · doi:10.1111/jvim.13975

Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Haptoglobin, Serum Amyloid A, and Fibrinogen versus Clinical Reference Standards for the Diagnosis of Bovine Respiratory Disease

2016· review· en· W2409788228 on OpenAlexaff
Abdelmonem Abdallah, Joanne Hewson, David Francoz, Heba A. Selim, Sébastien Buczinski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGold standard (test)Bovine respiratory diseaseHaptoglobinDiagnostic accuracyDiseaseSerum amyloid AInternal medicinePathologyIntensive care medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is a worldwide animal health concern especially in feedlot, dairy, and veal calves. One of the greatest challenges is the absence of a gold standard for achieving an accurate antemortem diagnosis. Various blood markers, including the acute-phase proteins (AAP), have been proposed as potential valuable tools for BRD diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the accuracy of selected APP (haptoglobin [Hp], serum amyloid A [SAA], and fibrinogen [Fb]) as diagnostic tools for cattle with naturally occurring BRD when compared with clinical reference standards of diagnosis. METHODS: This review was performed with eligible studies selected from CAB Abstract and MEDLINE from 1946 to 2015, as well as the "gray literature." Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool developed for diagnostic accuracy studies. The accuracy parameters sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) were obtained from the articles or through contact with the authors when not directly reported. RESULTS: A total of 314 studies were identified, from them, 23 met inclusion criteria as diagnostic studies for naturally occurring BRD. Quality of studies showed high risk of bias for case selection (70% of articles) and unclear risk of bias for index test (65%), reference standard (74%), and flow and timing (61%). There were high concerns regarding applicability for case selection (61% of studies) and reference standards used for defining BRD (48%). The concerns regarding index test application were low (83% of the studies). Only 4-8 studies could be included in the meta-analysis for each APP. No pooled estimates or pooled accuracy measurements were performed due to the low number of studies and multiple differences between studies, including reference standard definitions. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: On the basis of these findings, it is not possible to make conclusions regarding the accuracy of APP for BRD diagnosis. The reporting of accuracy of APP for BRD detection is inconsistent among studies. Recommendations to improve capability for future meta-analyses in this area include reporting studies on diagnostic tests following the Standard for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), as well as trying to standardize BRD definition across future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207