MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963997930 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2019.00258

Comparison of Two Rift Valley Fever Serological Tests in Cameroonian Cattle Populations Using a Bayesian Latent Class Approach

2019· article· en· W2963997930 on OpenAlexaff
Barend M. C. de Bronsvoort, Jean-Marc Bagninbom, Lucy Ndip, Robert Kelly, Ian Handel, Vincent N. Tanya, Kenton L. Morgan, Victor Ngu Ngwa, Stella Mazeri, Charles Nfon

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsRift Valley feverLivestockLatent class modelPopulationSerologyVeterinary medicineCredible intervalEpidemiologyGold standard (test)OutbreakMedicineBiologyDemographyVirologyConfidence intervalStatisticsImmunologyEnvironmental healthAntibodyInternal medicineEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rift Valley Fever is an important zoonotic viral disease of livestock occurring across much of Africa causing acute febrile illness, abortion and neonatal death in livestock particularly sheep and cattle and a range of disease in humans from mild flu-like symptoms to more severe haemorrhagic fever and death. Understanding the epidemiology requires well evaluated tools including antibody detection ELISAs. It is well recognized that tests developed in one population do not necessarily perform as well when used in different populations and it is therefore important to assess tests in the populations in which they are to be used. Here we describe the performance of a commercial RVF ELISA (ID.Vet ) and an inhouse plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT80). A Bayesian no gold standard latent class model for two tests and 2 populations based on the Hui-Walter model was used to estimate the test parameters using a range of populations based on geographical separation and age to assess consistency of performance across different sub-populations. The ID.Vet ELISA had an estimated diagnostic sensitivity (Se) of 0.854 (0.655-0.991 95%BCI) and specificity (Sp) of 0.986 (0.971-0.998 95%BCI) using all the data and splitting the population by geographical region compared to 0.844 (0.660-0.973 95%BCI) and 0.981 (0.965-0.996 95%BCI) for the PRNT80. There was slight variation in the mean Se and Sp in different sub-populations mainly in Se estimates due to small numbers of positives in the sub-populations but the 95% BCI generally overlapped suggesting a very consistent performance across the different geographical areas and ages of animals. This is one of few reports of serological evidence of RVF in Central Africa and strongly suggests the virus is actively circulating in this cattle population. This has important public health implications and RVF should be considered as a differential in both livestock disease cases as well as human febrile cases in Africa not just East Africa. We also demonstrate that the performance of the commercial ELISA is comparable to the PRNT80 but has the advantages of speed, lower cost and no containment needs making it a much more useful test for low and middle income settings.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207