Comparison of bacterial culture, PCR and a mix-ELISA for the detection of Salmonella status in nursery and grow-to-finish pigs in Western Canada using a Bayesian approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian and traditional statistical methods were used to estimate accuracy of bacterial culture, broth-enriched real-time-PCR for feces and a mix-ELISA (Svanovir®) for serum to detect Salmonella in nursery and grow-finish pigs on 10 fanns in western Canada. In nursery pigs, one pooled pen fecal sample and one blood sample were taken from each of 30 randomly selected pens. In grow-finish pigs, samples were similarly collected; an individual fecal sample was also taken from each pig bled. Only 8/247 ELISA-positive nursery pigs were detected; 80/247 pens were culture positive. Since there was no agreement between pen culture and ELISA results in the nursery pigs, further evaluation of test accuracy was not possible at this level. Among grow-to-finish pigs, agreement between culture and ELISA was fair (K=0.26-0.38). Agreement between culture and the RT-PCR was nearly perfect ( K=0.92-0.97).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".