ArticleScientific reports2025
Field study on the utility of fluid obtained from testicles as a sample for detecting antibodies to selected swine pathogens.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Processing fluid is a promising alternative to blood for monitoring porcine diseases, although certain aspects of its routine use remain unclear. This study evaluated serum from females and males, along with corresponding testicular only processing fluid, for antibodies against Actionbacillus pleuropneumonie, hepatitis E virus, porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, influenza A virus, Erysipetothrix rhusiopathie and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, using commercial ELISAs (ID Screen APP, Hepatitis E, PEDV, Influenza A from ID Vet, France; Civtest suis SE/MR from Hipra, Spain; and Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae from Idexx, USA). Differences in the proportion of positive results across sample types were analysed to assess the utility of testis-derived processing fluid for litter-level health monitoring. ROC analysis was used to establish optimal cut-offs for processing fluid, followed by evaluation of diagnostic performance using both manufacturer-recommended and ROC-derived thresholds. A pooling simulation was also performed. Results indicate that processing fluid collected exclusively from testes can detect antibodies against selected pathogens effectively. Some ELISA kits validated for serum may be applicable to processing fluid, provided that appropriate cut-off values are determined for this sample type. However, pooling processing fluid samples may reduce sensitivity and increase the risk of false-negative results. These findings highlight the potential of testis-derived processing fluid for large-scale serological surveillance while underscoring the need for test-specific validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.