English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Three different assays for detection of rubella antibodies, hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), fluorescence immunoassay (FIA), and passive latex agglutination (PLA) were used to test 297 human serum samples. Overall agreements for immune status were as follows: HAI versus FIA, 95.3% (283 of 297); HAI versus PLA (1:10 dilution), 96.3% (286 of 297); HAI versus PLA (undiluted), 93.9% (279 of 297); PLA (1:10 dilution) versus FIA, 94.9% (282 of 297); and PLA (undiluted) versus FIA, 97.9% (291 of 297). The HAI test is the most time consuming, subjective, and technically difficult to perform. The FIA and PLA tests are very rapid and less labor intensive. In addition, the FIA offers an objective determination of the patient's rubella antibody level.

Fluorescence immunoassay and passive latex agglutination as alternatives to hemagglutination inhibition for determining rubella immune status