Validation of a Commercial Glanders ELISA as an Alternative to the CFT in International Trade of Equidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glanders, caused byBurkholderia(B.)malleiis a notifiable zoonotic disease in equidae. For international trade and movement of equids, certificates of negative serological test results for antibodies againstB. malleiare required. To date, the complement fixation test (CFT) is the mandatory test to issue these health certificates. The CFT is difficult to standardize and, due to its poor specificity, often leads to false-positive reactions resulting in trade restrictions with considerable financial consequences. In the present study, the new ID Screen Glanders Double Antigen Multispecies ELISA (GLANDA- ELISA) (IDvet, Grabels, France) was evaluated using 400 negative and 370 glanders positive field samples of equidae. The GLANDA-ELISA was significantly more specific (99.8%) than the CFT (97.0%). Considering the comparable sensitivities of CFT (96.5%) and ELISA (98.1%), this new GLANDA-ELISA test appears a suitable confirmatory test and a realistic alternative for serological testing of horses for trade or movement.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".