A comparison of sampling and testing approaches for the surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed American mink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in American mink ( Neovison vison) is a global priority because outbreaks on mink farms have potential consequences for animal and public health. Surveillance programs often focus on screening natural mortalities; however, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding sampling and testing approaches. Using 76 mink from 3 naturally infected farms in British Columbia, Canada, we compared the performance of 2 reverse-transcription real-time PCR (RT-rtPCR) targets (the envelope [ E] and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase [ RdRp] genes) as well as serology. We also compared RT-rtPCR and sequencing results from nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, skin, and rectal swabs, as well as nasopharyngeal samples collected using swabs and interdental brushes. We found that infected mink were generally RT-rtPCR–positive on all samples; however, Ct values differed significantly among sample types (nasopharyngeal < oropharyngeal < skin < rectal). There was no difference in the results of nasopharyngeal samples collected using swabs or interdental brushes. For most mink (89.4%), qualitative (i.e., positive vs. negative) serology and RT-rtPCR results were concordant. However, mink were positive on RT-rtPCR and negative on serology and vice versa, and there was no significant correlation between Ct values on RT-rtPCR and percent inhibition on serology. Both the E and RdRp targets were detectable in all sample types, albeit with a small difference in Ct values. Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in multiple sample types, passive surveillance programs in mink should focus on multiple target RT-rtPCR testing of nasopharyngeal samples in combination with serology.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".