MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2930819474 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214963

Evaluation of the comparative accuracy of the complement fixation test, Western blot and five enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for serodiagnosis of glanders

2019· article· en· W2930819474 on OpenAlexaff
Mandy C. Elschner, Karine Laroucau, Harisankar Singha, Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, Muhammad Saqib, Ian A. Gardner, Sheetal Saini, Subodh Kumar, Hosny El‐Adawy, Falk Melzer, Iahtasham Khan, Praveen Malik, Carola Sauter‐Louis, Heinrich Neubauer

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurkholderia infections and melioidosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplement fixation testAntigenBurkholderiaVirologySerologyBiologyWestern blotMicrobiologyAntibodyImmunologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glanders is a zoonotic contagious disease of equids caused by Burkholderia (B.) mallei. Serodiagnosis of the disease is challenging because of false-positive and false-negative test results. The accuracy of the complement fixation test (CFT) which is prescribed for international trade by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), five ELISAs and a Western blot (WB) were compared for serodiagnosis of glanders using sera from 3,000 glanders-free and 254 glanderous equids. Four ELISA tests are based on recombinant antigens (TssA, TssB, BimA and Hcp1), the IDVet ELISA is based on a semi-purified fraction of B. mallei and WB makes use of a purified LPS-containing B. mallei-antigen. Sensitivity and specificity of tests were estimated using cut-off values recommended by the test developers. The WB and all ELISAs, except BimA, were significantly more specific than the CFT. ELISAs based on TssA, TssB, and BimA antigens had significantly lower sensitivity compared to CFT while the sensitivities of the Hcp1-ELISA, the IDVet-ELISA and the WB did not differ significantly from that of the CFT. Given their comparable sensitivities and specificities, the CFT (98.0%, 96.4%), the WB (96.8%, 99.4%), the Hcp1-ELISA (95.3%, 99.6%) and the IDVet-ELISA (92.5%, 99.5%) should be further developed to meet OIE requirements.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBurkholderia infections and melioidosisFrench-language works237,207