MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982114279

Evaluation of transmission infrared spectroscopy and digital and optical refractometers to identify low immunoglobulin G concentrations in alpaca serum.

2017· article· en· W2982114279 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim Elsohaby, Burns Jj, Christopher B. Riley, McClure Jt

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractometerRefractometryBrixChemistryCutoffStandard curveCorrelation coefficientChromatographyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MathematicsBiochemistryRefractive indexOpticsPhysicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 0.99]. However, the correlation coefficients between Brix % and STP with serum RID-IgG concentrations were only 0.56 and 0.55, respectively. Twenty-one (12.4%) of 169 alpaca serum samples had IgG concentrations of < 10 g/L. Using receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, the optimal cutoff points for the TIR assay, digital Brix, and optical STP refractometers for assessing low IgG (RID < 10 g/L) were 13 g/L, 8.8%, and 50 g/L, respectively. The TIR assay showed higher sensitivity (Se = 95.2%) and specificity (Sp = 96.8%) than either the digital Brix (Se = 90.5% and Sp = 65.5%) or optical STP (Se = 81% and Sp = 73.7%) refractometers for assessing alpacas with low IgG. In conclusion, the Brix and STP refractometers lack accuracy in measuring alpaca IgG concentrations, but may be useful for screening animals for low serum IgG. However, the TIR assay with a cutoff point of 13 g/L was more appropriate for identifying low IgG than either refractometer. Another study that focuses on neonatal crias is recommended in order to evaluate the usefulness of these assays for field diagnosing of failure of transfer of passive immunity (FTPI).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207