MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139132142 · doi:10.1128/jcm.03161-20

Evaluation of Diagnostic Accuracy of Eight Commercial Assays for the Detection of Measles Virus-Specific IgM Antibodies

2021· article· en· W3139132142 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Hiebert, Vanessa Zubach, Carmen Charlton, Jayne Fenton, Graham Tipples, Kevin Fonseca, Alberto Severini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParvovirus B19 Infection Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubellaMeaslesMeasles virusMedicineVirologyImmunoglobulin MImmunoassayAntibodyImmunologyImmunoglobulin GVaccination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 187) were collected from individuals presenting with other fever and rash illnesses. A total of 7 ELISA kits (Euroimmun native antigens and recombinant nucleoprotein, IBL, Clin-Tech Microimmune, NovaTec NovaLisa, Serion, and Siemens Enzygnost) and one CLIA method (DiaSorin LIAISON XL) were evaluated. The ELISA kits included two IgM capture methods and five indirect methods. Calculated sensitivities and specificities ranged from 75.0% to 98.1% and 86.6% to 99.5%, respectively. The parvovirus B19 IgM positive sera were noted to cause false-positive results, particularly for the ELISA kits from Serion and NovaLisa; specificities for this subset of samples ranged from 51.4% to 100.0%. The capture IgM ELISA methods provided the best combination of sensitivity and specificity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicParvovirus B19 Infection StudiesFrench-language works237,207