Aplicación de la prueba de fluorescencia polarizada para la detección de brucelosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En el presente estudio las pruebas de diagnóstico\nde la Organización Mundial de Salud Animal se\ncompararon con la prueba de fluorescencia\npolarizada (PFP), sola y en combinación, usando\nlas ELISA indirecta y competitiva como variable\nde clasificación para sueros de cabras obtenidas\nen una zona de alta prevalencia y vacunación. La\nsensibilidad y especificidad relativas fueron,\nrespectivamente, 99.7% y 32.5% para la PRB3,\n92.8% y 68.8% para la RBT8, 98.4% y 84.8%\npara la PFC canadiense, 83.7% y 65.5% para la\nPFC mexicana, y 78.1% y 89.3% para la PFP. El\nuso de la PFP como prueba confirmatoria en\ncombinación con otras pruebas aumentó\nsignificativamente la especificidad final de las\npruebas de escrutinio; PAPA, PRB3 y PRB8 más\nPFP resultaron en 90%, 91.2% y 91.3% de\nespecificidad final, respectivamente, mientras que\nlas especificidades para las combinaciones PRB3+\nPFC mexicana, PRB8+ PFC mexicana, y PAPA+\nPFC canadiense, fueron 65.5%, 63.2% y 91.7%,\nrespectivamente. Sugerimos que la PFP se puede\naplicar de forma rutinaria como una prueba de\nescrutinio para el diagnóstico de la brucelosis\ncaprina y como confirmatoria en pruebas seriadas.\n\nIn the present study, the World Organization for\nAnimal Health diagnostic tests were compared\nwith the fluorescence polarization assay (FPA),\nalone and in combination, using the indirect\nELISA and competitive as variable classification\nfor goat serum obtained in a zone of high prevalence\nand vaccination. The relative sensitivity and\nspecificity were 99.7% and 32.5% respectively for\nthe complement fixation test 3% (CFT3), 92.8%\nand 68.8% for RBT8, 98.4% and 84.8% for the\nCanadian CFTs, 83.7% and 65.5% for Mexican\nCFTs, and 78.1% and 89.3% for the FPA. The\nuse of the FPA as a confirmatory test in combination\nwith others significantly increased final specificity\nfor screening tests; buffered plaque agglutination \ntest (BPAT), CFT3, and CFT8 plus FPA\nresulted in 90%, 91.2%, and 91.3% final specificity\nrespectively; whereas the specificities for\ncombinations CFT3 + FPA, Mexican CFT8 +\nFPA, Mexican and Canadian BPAT + CFTs, were\n65.5%, 63.2%, and 91.7% respectively. We suggest\nthat the FPA can be routinely applied as a\nscreening test for diagnosis of goat brucellosis,\nand as confirmatory in serial testing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".