<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sophie Roelandt</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Yves Van der Stede</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Czaplicki, G</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Loo, H</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Driessche, E</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dewulf, J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hooyberghs, J</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Faes, C</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Serological diagnosis of bovine neosporosis: a Bayesian evaluation of two antibody ELISA tests for in vivo diagnosis in purchased and abortion cattle.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vet Rec</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vet. Rec.</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Abortion, Veterinary</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Animals</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Antibodies, Protozoan</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bayes Theorem</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Belgium</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cattle</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cattle Diseases</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Coccidiosis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Commerce</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Neospora</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pregnancy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Seroepidemiologic Studies</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015 Jun 06</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">176</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">598</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Currently, there are no perfect reference tests for the in vivo detection of Neospora caninum infection. Two commercial N caninum ELISA tests are currently used in Belgium for bovine sera (TEST A and TEST B). The goal of this study is to evaluate these tests used at their current cut-offs, with a no gold standard approach, for the test purpose of (1) demonstration of freedom of infection at purchase and (2) diagnosis in aborting cattle. Sera of two study populations, Abortion population (n=196) and Purchase population (n=514), were selected and tested with both ELISA's. Test results were entered in a Bayesian model with informative priors on population prevalences only (Scenario 1). As sensitivity analysis, two more models were used: one with informative priors on test diagnostic accuracy (Scenario 2) and one with all priors uninformative (Scenario 3). The accuracy parameters were estimated from the first model: diagnostic sensitivity (Test A: 93.54 per cent-Test B: 86.99 per cent) and specificity (Test A: 90.22 per cent-Test B: 90.15 per cent) were high and comparable (Bayesian P values &gt;0.05). Based on predictive values in the two study populations, both tests were fit for purpose, despite an expected false negative fraction of ±0.5 per cent in the Purchase population and ±5 per cent in the Abortion population. In addition, a false positive fraction of ±3 per cent in the overall Purchase population and ±4 per cent in the overall Abortion population was found.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25861822?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>