Serological diagnosis of bovine brucellosis : a review of test performance and cost comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors reviewed over 50 publications in which the sensitivity and specificity values of assays used for the detection of exposure to Brucella abortus had been examined. The sum of the sensitivity and specificity values for each test was averaged to give a performance index (PI) and allow for a comparison between the different methodologies. A score of 200 was perfect. Based on the PI, the buffered antigen plate agglutination test (BPAT) rated highest (PI = 193.1) among the conventional tests. This indicates better accuracy than the other conventional tests including the Rose Bengal test (PI = 167.6) and the complement fixation test (PI = 172.5). Overall, the primary binding assays, including the fluorescence polarisation assay (PI = 196.4), the indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (PI = 189.8) and the competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (PI = 188.2), were more accurate than the conventional tests, except for the BPAT. In addition, a fee comparison suggested that the primary binding tests were price competitive with conventional tests for the diagnosis of brucellosis and, therefore, had a better combined cost/efficiency rating.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".