MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771269301 · doi:10.1111/jvim.14893

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Serum Refractometry and Brix Refractometry for the Diagnosis of Inadequate Transfer of Passive Immunity in Calves

2017· review· en· W2771269301 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Buczinski, E. Gicquel, G. Fecteau, Yemisi Takwoingi, Munashe Chigerwe, Jean‐Michel Vandeweerd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractometryMedicineRadial immunodiffusionBrixMeta-analysisImmunoassayPopulationInternal medicineImmunologyAntibodyBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Transfer of passive immunity in calves can be assessed by direct measurement of immunoglobulin G (IgG) by methods such as radial immunodiffusion (RID) or turbidimetric immunoassay (TIA). IgG can also be measured indirectly by methods such as serum refractometry (REF) or Brix refractometry (BRIX). OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of REF and BRIX for assessment of inadequate transfer of passive immunity (ITPI) in calves. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. METHODS: Databases (PubMed and CAB Abstract, Searchable Proceedings of Animal Science) and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies. Studies were eligible if the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of REF or BRIX was determined using direct measurement of IgG by RID or turbidimetry as the reference standard. The study population included calves <14 days old that were fed with natural colostrum (colostrum replacement products were excluded). Quality assessment was performed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Hierarchical models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: From 1,291 references identified, 13 studies of 3,788 calves were included. Of these, 11 studies evaluated REF and 5 studies evaluated BRIX. The median (range) prevalence of ITPI (defined as calves with IgG <10 g/L by RID or TIA) was 21% (1.3-56%). Risk of bias and applicability concerns were generally low or unclear. For REF, summary estimates were obtained for 2 different cutoffs: 5.2 g/dL (6 studies) and 5.5 g/dL (5 studies). For the 5.2 g/dL cutoff, the summary sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) were 76.1% (63.8-85.2%) and 89.3% (82.3-93.7%), and 88.2% (80.2-93.3%) and 77.9% (74.5-81.0%) for the 5.5 g/dL cutoff. Due to the low number of studies using the same cutoffs, summary estimates could not be obtained for BRIX. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Despite their widespread use on dairy farms, evidence about the optimal strategy for using refractometry, including the optimal cutoff, are sparse (especially for BRIX). When using REF to rule out ITPI in herds, the 5.5 g/dL cutoff may be used whereas for ruling in ITPI, the 5.2 g/dL cutoff may be used.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.038
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.325
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations82
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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