Comparison of commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and agar gel immunodiffusion tests for the serodiagnosis of equine infectious anemia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to estimate the performance characteristics (accuracy, detection limit, and precision) of commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and agar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) kits in comparison with a reference AGID kit for the detection of equine infectious anemia (EIA) antibodies in horses for regulatory use in Canada. A total of 285 positive and 315 negative samples by the reference AGID were tested blindly on 2 other AGID and 4 ELISA kits. Commercially available AGID kits for the serodiagnosis of EIA were found equivalent. The 3 ELISAs directed against antibodies to the p26 core protein also performed relatively well in comparison with the reference AGID, with excellent relative accuracy and acceptable precision. The single ELISA directed against antibodies to the gp45 trans-membrane viral protein yielded a lower relative sensitivity. The performance characteristics of the ELISAs directed against antibodies to p26 are, therefore, adequate to support the implementation of ELISA for regulatory purposes in Canada.
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 | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".