Correcting for enzyme immunoassay changes in long term monitoring studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) are a common tool for measuring steroid hormones in wildlife due to their low cost, commercial availability, and rapid results. Testing technologies improve continuously, sometimes requiring changes in protocols or crucial assay components. Antibody replacement between EIA kits can cause differences in EIA sensitivity, which can hinder monitoring hormone concentration over time. The antibody in a common cortisol EIA kit used for long-term monitoring of stress in wildlife was replaced in 2014, causing differences in cross reactivity and standard curve concentrations. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a method to standardize results following changes in EIA sensitivity. We validated this method using cortisol concentrations measured in the hair of brown bears (Ursus arctos). We used a simple linear regression to model the relationship between cortisol concentrations using kit 1 and kit 2. We found a linear relationship between the two kits (R2 = 0.85) and used the regression equation (kit2 = (0.98 × kit1) + 1.65) to predict cortisol concentrations in re-measured samples. Mean predicted percent error was 16% and 72% of samples had a predicted percent error <20%, suggesting that this method is well-suited for correcting changes in EIA sensitivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".