MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2479750220 · doi:10.1017/s1466252316000074

Diagnostic accuracy of refractometer and Brix refractometer to assess failure of passive transfer in calves: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2479750220 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Buczinski, G. Fecteau, Munashe Chigerwe, Jean‐Michel Vandeweerd

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCanadian Veterinary Medical Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractometryRefractometerBrixMeta-analysisProtocol (science)MedicineChemistryPathologyOpticsRefractive indexPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calves are highly dependent of colostrum (and antibody) intake because they are born agammaglobulinemic. The transfer of passive immunity in calves can be assessed directly by dosing immunoglobulin G (IgG) or by refractometry or Brix refractometry. The latter are easier to perform routinely in the field. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of refractometry or Brix refractometry versus dosage of IgG as a reference standard test. With this review protocol we aim to be able to report refractometer and Brix refractometer accuracy in terms of sensitivity and specificity as well as to quantify the impact of any study characteristic on test accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.039
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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 head0.706
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.068 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Health Research ReviewsSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207