Short communication: Evaluation of 5 different ELISA for the detection of bovine leukemia virus antibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Canadian dairy herds have been infected with bovine leukemia virus (BLV) for years, recent research has put new emphasis on the potential negative effects of this infection. Consequently, BLV control is becoming more favorable; however, BLV control cannot be successful without identifying infected animals. Bovicheck BLV (Biovet, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada) is currently the only assay licensed by the Canadian Centre for Veterinary Biologics. The first goal of this study was, therefore, to determine the reproducibility of the Bovicheck BLV assay for serum samples derived from Canadian cattle. The second goal was to evaluate and compare 5 different ELISA and determine their test characteristics using serum samples from Canadian herds. The considered ELISA were Bovicheck BLV, ID Screen BLV Competition (IDvet, Grabels, France), Idexx Leukosis Serum X2 Ab Test (Idexx Europe B.V., Hoofddorp, the Netherlands), Svanovir BLV gp51-Ab (Svanova, Uppsala, Sweden), and the Serelisa BLV Ab Mono Indirect (Synbiotics, Lyon, France). Eighty serum samples from Canadian cattle provided by Prairie Diagnostic Services (PDS; Saskatoon, SK, Canada) and an additional 80 serum samples from Canadian dairy and beef herds were used for the study. The Bovicheck BLV assay yielded the same results for all PDS-derived samples, implying a high level of reproducibility and robustness of this assay. Additionally, the comparison of the assays' results showed high agreement between assays, with Cohen's kappa values between κ = 0.91 and κ = 1. Furthermore, using original test results of the field samples as true status, relative diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Relative diagnostic sensitivity of all tests was 100%. False-positive results were probable; therefore, the following relative diagnostic specificities were determined: 100% for Bovicheck BLV, Idexx Leukosis Serum X2, and Svanovir BLV; 95% for ID Screen BLV; and 97% for Serelisa BLV. When considering other test characteristics, ID Screen BLV is exceptional due to considerable practical advantages.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".