{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03225806451612903, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011827956989247311, 'mean_word_length': 4.782608695652174, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison between reverse line blot and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in diagnosis of major tick-borne diseases of cattle in Southern Sudan.

The performance of reverse line blot (RLB) in detecting DNA of Theileria parva, Theileria mutans and Babesia bigemina was assessed in comparison with specific antibody detection using indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for the same parasites. Among 90 field samples from Central Equatoria state, Southern Sudan, ELISA reported more positive samples than RLB did. The concordance of RLB showed 66.7%, 81.1% and 48.9% relative to the results of ELISA for T. parva, T. mutans and B. bigemina respectively. It has to be borne in mind that the results of ELISA might represent previous infections, while that of RLB would not only reflect an active infection, but also a carrier status. Therefore, the selection of the test would depend on the specific aims of the study.