Design standards for experimental and field studies to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of tests for infectious diseases in aquatic animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design and reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies (DAS) are important metrics for assessing utility of tests used in animal and human health. Following standards for designing DAS will assist in appropriate test selection for specific testing purposes and minimize the risk of reporting biased sensitivity and specificity estimates. To examine the benefits of recommending standards, design information from published DAS literature was assessed for 10 finfish, seven mollusc, nine crustacean and two amphibian diseases listed in the 2017 OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals. Of the 56 DAS identified, 41 were based on field testing, eight on experimental challenge studies and seven on both. Also, we adapted human and terrestrial-animal standards and guidelines for DAS structure for use in aquatic animal diagnostic research. Through this process, we identified and addressed important metrics for consideration at the design phase: study purpose, targeted disease state, selection of appropriate samples and specimens, laboratory analytical methods, statistical methods and data interpretation. These recommended design standards for DAS are presented as a checklist including risk-of-failure points and actions to mitigate bias at each critical step. Adherence to standards when designing DAS will also facilitate future systematic review and meta-analyses of DAS research literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".