Evaluation of different molecular methods for detection of Senecavirus A and the result of the antigen surveillance in Korea during 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Senecavirus A (SVA), previously known as Seneca Valley virus, can cause vesicular disease and neonatal losses in pigs that is clinically indistinguishable from foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV). After the first case report in Canada in 2007, it had been restrictively identified in North America including United States. But, since 2015, SVA emerged outside North America in Brazil, and also in several the Asian countries including China, Thailand, and Vietnam. Considering the SVA occurrence in neighboring countries, there has been a high risk that Korea can be introduced at any time. In particular, it is very important in terms of differential diagnosis in the suspected case of vesicular diseases in countries where FMD is occurring. So far, several different molecular detection methods for SVV have been published but not validated as the reference method, yet. In this study, seven different molecular methods for detecting SVA were evaluated. Among them, the method by Flowler et al, (2017) targeted to 3D gene region with the highest sensitivity and no cross reaction with other vesicular disease agents including FMDV, VSV and SVD, was selected and applied further to antigen surveillance of SVA. A total of 245 samples of 157 pigs from 61 farms submitted for animal disease diagnose nationwide during 2018 were tested all negative. In 2018, no sign of SVA occurrence have been confirmed in Korea, but the results of the surveillance for SVA needs to be continued and accumulated at a high risk of SVA in neighboring countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".