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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.325
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