MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398558139 · doi:10.3168/jds.2024-24693

Validity of luminometry and bacteriological tests for diagnosing intramammary infection at dry-off in dairy cows

2024· article· en· W4398558139 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Denis-Robichaud, Nicolas Barbeau-Grégoire, Marie-Lou Gauthier, Simon Dufour, Jean‐Philippe Roy, Sébastien Buczinski, J. Dubuc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint HyacintheUniversité de MontréalMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'AlimentationService de Recherche et d'EXpertise en Transformation des Produits Forestiers
FundersUniversité de MontréalMinistère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
KeywordsDairy cattleAnimal scienceMastitisBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this cross-sectional study was to estimate the validity of laboratory culture, Petrifilm and Tri-Plate on-farm culture systems, as well as luminometry to correctly identify IMI at dry-off in dairy cows, considering all tests to be imperfect. From September 2020 until December 2021, we collected composite milk samples from cows before dry-off and divided them into 4 aliquots for luminometry, Petrifilm (aerobic count), Tri-Plate, and laboratory culture tests. We assessed multiple thresholds of relative light units (RLU) for luminometry, and we used thresholds of ≥100 cfu/mL for the laboratory culture, ≥50 cfu/mL for Petrifilm, and ≥1 cfu for Tri-Plate tests. We fitted Bayesian latent class analysis models to estimate the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) for each test to identify IMI, with 95% credibility interval (BCI). Using different prevalence measures (0.30, 0.50, and 0.70), we calculated the predictive values (PV) and misclassification cost terms (MCT) at different false negative-to-false-positive ratios (FN:FP). A total of 333 cows were enrolled in the study from one commercial Holstein herd. The validity of the luminometry was poor for all thresholds, with an Se of 0.51 (95% BCI = 0.43-0.59) and Sp of 0.38 (95% BCI = 0.26-0.50) when using a threshold of ≥150 RLU. The laboratory culture had an Se of 0.93 (95% BCI = 0.85-0.98) and Sp of 0.69 (95% BCI = 0.49-0.89); the Petrifilm had an Se of 0.91 (95% BCI = 0.80-0.98) and Sp of 0.71 (95% BCI = 0.51-0.90); and the Tri-Plate had an Se of 0.65 (95% BCI = 0.53-0.82) and Sp of 0.85 (95% BCI = 0.66-0.97). Bacteriological tests had good PV, with comparable positive PV for all 3 tests, but lower negative PV for the Tri-Plate compared with the laboratory culture and the Petrifilm. For a prevalence of IMI of 0.30, all 3 tests had similar MCT, but for prevalence of 0.50 and 0.70, the Tri-Plate had higher MCT in scenarios where leaving a cow with IMI untreated is considered to have greater detrimental effects than treating a healthy cow (i.e., FN:FP of 3:1). Our results showed that the bacteriological tests have adequate validity to diagnose IMI at dry-off, but luminometry does not. We concluded that although luminometry is not useful to identify IMI at dry-off, the Petrifilm and Tri-Plate tests performed similarly to laboratory culture, depending on the prevalence and importance of the FP and FN results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207