MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250077445 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.19414/v3

Evaluation of a Rapid Immunochromatographic test kit to the Gold Standard Fluorescent Antibody test for diagnosis of rabies in animals in Bhutan

2020· preprint· en· W4250077445 on OpenAlexaff
Tenzin Tenzin, Kelzang Lhamo, Dawa Tshering, Pema Jamtsho, Jamyang Namgyal, Thrinang Wangdi, Sangay Letho, Tuku Rai, Sonam Jamtsho, Chendu Dorji, Sangay Rinchen, Lungten Lungten, Karma Wangmo, Lungten Lungten, Pema Wangchuk, Tshewang Gempo, Kezang Jigme, Karma Phuntshok, Tenzinla Tenzinla, Ratna B. Gurung, Kinzang Dukpa

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health
FundersRoyal Government of BhutanWorld Health Organization
KeywordsGold standard (test)RabiesVirologyAntibodyMedicineImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Rabies kills approximately 59,000 people in the world each year worldwide. Rapid and accurate diagnosis of rabies is important for instituting rapid containment measures and for advising the exposed people for postexposure treatment. The application of a rapid diagnostic tests in the field can greatly enhance disease surveillance and diagnostic activities, especially in resource poor settings. In this study, a total of 179 brain tissue samples collected from different rabies suspect animal species (113 dogs, 50 cattle, 10 cats, 3 goats, 2 horses, and 1 bear) were selected and tested using both rapid immunochromatographic kit and the reference standard fluorescent antibody test (FAT). We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of a rapid antigen detection test kit produced by BioNote, Inc. (Hwaseong-si, Korea) relative to a FAT for its fit-for-purpose for confirmation of clinical cases of rabies for early response and enhancing rabies surveillance. Results: Among 179 samples examined in this study, there was a concordance in results by the rapid test and FAT in 115 positive samples and 54 negative samples. Test results were discordant in 10 samples which were positive by FAT, but negative (false negative) by rapid kit. The rapid test kit showed a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI: 85.9 – 95.6) and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 93.4 – 100) using FAT as the reference standard. The positive and negative predictive values were found to be 100% (95% CI:96.7 – 100) and 84.4% (95% CI: 73.6 – 91.3), respectively. Overall, there was 94.4% (95% CI: 90 – 96.9) test agreement between rapid test and FAT (Kappa value = 0.874) with a positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement of 92 and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: Our finding demonstrated that the rapid test kit (BioNote) can be used for rabies surveillance and confirming clinical case of rabies in animals for making rapid decisions particularly controlling rabies outbreaks in resource poor settings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207