Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Agriculture,Environment and Rural Affairs,Upper Newtownards Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland,UK.
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences,Utrecht University,Padualaan, Utrecht,The Netherlands.
Epidemiol Infect. 2019 Jan;147:e209. doi: 10.1017/S0950268819000888.
The single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin (SICCT) test and post-mortem examination are the main diagnostic tools for bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle in the British Isles. Latent class modelling is often used to estimate the bTB test characteristics due to the absence of a gold standard. However, the reported sensitivity of especially the SICCT test has shown a lot of variation. We applied both the Hui-Walter latent class model under the Bayesian framework and the Bayesian model specified at the animal level, including various risk factors as predictors, to estimate the SICCT test and post-mortem test characteristics. Data were collected from all cattle slaughtered in abattoirs in Northern Ireland in 2015. Both models showed comparable posterior median estimation for the sensitivity of the SICCT test (88.61% and 90.56%, respectively) using standard interpretation and for post-mortem examination (53.65% and 53.79%, respectively). Both models showed almost identical posterior median estimates for the specificity (99.99% vs. 99.80% for SICCT test at standard interpretation and 99.66% vs. 99.86% for post-mortem examination). The animal-level model showed slightly narrower posterior 95% credible intervals. Notably, this study was carried out in slaughtered cattle which may not be representative for the general cattle population.
在不列颠群岛,对于牛结核病(bTB),单一皮内比较颈结核菌素(SICCT)检测和剖检是主要的诊断工具。由于缺乏金标准,通常使用潜在类别建模来估计 bTB 检测的特征。然而,特别是 SICCT 检测的报告敏感性显示出很大的差异。我们应用 Hui-Walter 潜在类别模型(贝叶斯框架下)和包括各种风险因素作为预测因子的动物水平贝叶斯模型,来估计 SICCT 检测和剖检的特征。数据来自 2015 年在北爱尔兰所有屠宰场屠宰的牛。这两种模型都使用标准解释,对 SICCT 检测的敏感性(分别为 88.61%和 90.56%)和剖检(分别为 53.65%和 53.79%)进行了类似的后验中位数估计。这两种模型对特异性的后验中位数估计几乎相同(SICCT 检测的标准解释为 99.99%,而动物水平模型为 99.80%;剖检为 99.66%,而动物水平模型为 99.86%)。动物水平模型显示出更窄的后验 95%可信区间。值得注意的是,本研究是在屠宰牛中进行的,这可能不能代表一般牛群。