Validation of a cage-side agglutination card for Dal blood typing in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although 98% of the canine population is Dal-positive, Dal-negative dogs are more common in some breeds such as Doberman Pinschers (42.4%) and Dalmatians (11.7%), and finding compatible blood for these breeds may be challenging, given limited access to Dal blood typing. OBJECTIVES: To validate a cage-side agglutination card for Dal blood typing and determine the lowest packed cell volume (PCV threshold) at which interpretation remains accurate. ANIMALS: One-hundred fifty dogs, including 38 blood donors, 52 Doberman Pinschers, 23 Dalmatians and 37 anemic dogs. Three additional Dal-positive canine blood donors were included to establish the PCV threshold. METHODS: Dal blood typing was performed on blood samples preserved in ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) <48 hours using the cage-side agglutination card and a gel column technique (gold standard). The PCV threshold was determined using plasma-diluted blood samples. All results were read by 2 observers, blinded to each other's interpretation and to the sample's origin. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was 98% and 100% using the card and gel column assays, respectively. Overall, the sensitivity and specificity of the cards were 86%-87.6% and 96.6%-100%, respectively, depending on the observer. However, 18 samples were mistyped using the agglutination cards (15/18 by both observers): 1 false-positive (Doberman Pinscher), and 17 false-negative samples including 13 anemic dogs (PCV range, 5%-24%; median, 13%). The PCV threshold allowing reliable interpretation was determined to be >20%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Dal agglutination cards are reliable as a cage-side test, but results should be interpreted cautiously in severely anemic patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".