Measures of diagnostic precision (repeatability and reproducibility) for three test methods designed to detect spring viremia of carp virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spring viremia of carp virus (SVCV) is a rhabdovirus of the Sprivivirus genus and the etiological agent of an internationally regulated aquatic animal disease in several fish species, including koi carp Cyprinus carpio L. The virus has a complex lifecycle with both acute and persistent stages of infection and can cause high mortality in affected populations. In this study, the diagnostic repeatability (within laboratory agreement) and reproducibility (between laboratory agreement) of 3 tests were investigated to assess their fitness as SVCV diagnostic tools. The tests, reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assays targeting either the SVCV glycoprotein (Q1G) or nucleoprotein (Q2N) genes and virus isolation by cell culture (VI), were performed in a blinded study with four Canadian laboratories. Test panels consisted of duplicate sets of 100 tissue samples collected from 3 SVCV prevalence populations of koi: a low-prevalence negative reference population (n = 20 fish) as well as moderate- (n = 50 fish) and high-prevalence (n = 30 fish) populations of koi experimentally infected with SVCV. The Q1G and Q2N tests were performed with kidney tissue in 3 laboratories and with brain tissue in 1 laboratory whereas pools of kidney, spleen and gill tissues were tested with the VI assay in 2 laboratories. Agreement of binary results was evaluated using the observed proportion of agreement, Cohen's kappa and Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC1) whereas the concordance correlation coefficient (ccc) and Bland Altman's limit of agreement were used to evaluate agreement of the RT-qPCR continuous data. Gwet's AC1 provided a more stable estimate of agreement than Cohen's kappa. Overall, high repeatability (AC1, 0.78-0.90) and reproducibility (AC1, 0.74-0.89) were observed for the Q1G and Q2N tests when kidney tissue was used. Lower agreement estimates of repeatability (AC1, 0.54-0.77) and reproducibility (AC1, 0.50-0.80) were obtained for the VI test. RT-qPCR reproducibility was low with kidney-brain tissue pairs (AC1, 0.09-0.46) and high with inter-test pairs of brain (AC1, 0.76-0.86) or kidney tissue (0.75-0.86). Tissue-specific differences in virus load affected test precision and informed final tissue selection. Repeatability (ccc, 0.94-0.97) and reproducibility (ccc, 0.91-0.97) estimates of agreement for paired continuous data from the RT-qPCR assays were similarly high with kidney tissue and lower with paired brain (ccc, 0.15-0.83) and kidney-brain tissues (ccc, 0.01-0.55). The high precision of Q1G and Q2N with kidney tissue suggests that the tests are performing similarly and are suitable candidates for assessment of their diagnostic accuracy.
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 | 0.067 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".