3Alex.andersen S,Zhang Z,Donaldson Al, et al. The pathogenesis and diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease[J]. J Comp Pathol2003,129(1): 1-36. DOI: 10. 1016/S0021-9975(03)00041-0.
4MoonenP, van der Linde E,Chenard G,et al. Comparable sen-sitivity and specificity in three commercially available ELISAs todifferentiate between cattle infected with or vaccinated againstfoot-and-mouth disease virus[J]. Vet Microbiol, 2004,99(2);93-101. DOI: 10. 1016/j. vetmic2003. 12. 003.
5BronsvoortBM, Sorensen KJ, Anderson J , et al. Comparison oftwo 3ABC enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for diagnosis ofmultiple-serotype foot-and-mouth disease in a cattle population inan area of endemicity[J], J Clin Microbiol, 2004,42(5) : 2108-2114. DOI: 10. 1128/JCM. 42. 5. 2108-2114. 2004.
6DekkerA,Sammin D,Greiner M, et al. Use of continuous re-sults to compare ELISAs for the detection of antibodies to non-structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus[J]. Vaccine,2008,26(22) : 2723-2732. DOI: 10. 1016/j. vaccine. 2008. 03052.
7CopasJB. Overestimation of the receiver operating characteristiccurve for logistic regression[J]. Biometrika,2002,89(2) : 315-331. DOI: 10. 1093/biomet/89. 2. 315.
8GaoM, Zhang R,Li M,et al. An ELISA based on the repeatedfoot-and-mouth disease virus 3B epitope peptide can distinguishinfected and vaccinated cattle [J]. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol,2012, 93(3) : 1271-1279. DOI: 10. 1007/s00253-011-3815-0.
9SwetsJA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems[J]. Sci-ence, 1988,240 ( 4857 ) : 1285-1293. DOI: 10. 1126/science.3287615.
10BrocchiE,Bergmann IE, Dekker A,et al. Comparative evalua-tion of six. ELISAs for the detection of antibodies to the non-structural proteins of foot-and-mouth disease virus C J ]. Vac-cine, 2006, 24(47-48) : 6966-6979. DOI: 10. 1016/j. vaccine.2006. 04. 050.
