Screening the Blood Supply for West Nile Virus RNA by Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The use of nucleic acid amplification tests of "minipools" of 16 samples to screen blood donors for West Nile virus RNA began in July 2003. We report the yield and characteristics of positive donations and the incremental yield and safety of nucleic acid amplification tests of individual donations. METHODS: Reactive minipools were analyzed to identify the individual reactive donations. For the regions with the highest yield on minipool testing, retrospective nucleic acid amplification testing was performed on individual donations that were negative on minipool testing. Reactive donations were confirmed by alternative nucleic acid amplification tests and IgM and IgG tests, and donors were followed to document seroconversion. RESULTS: From July 1 through October 31, 2003, 677,603 donations were prospectively screened for West Nile virus by minipool testing, yielding 183 confirmed viremic donations (0.027 percent, or 1 in 3703 donations). Retrospective individual testing of 23,088 donations from high-prevalence regions that were negative on minipool testing yielded 30 additional units with a low level of viremia, with 14 additional viremic units detected by prospective testing of individual donations late in the 2003 transmission season. Of all the viremic units detected, 5 percent were detected only by individual testing and were negative for IgM antibody, 29 percent were detected by individual testing after IgM seroconversion, and 66 percent were detected by minipool testing. West Nile virus infection was confirmed in both recipients of IgM-negative units that were reactive on individual testing, whereas neither recipient of antibody-positive blood components that were reactive on individual testing was infected. In 2004, prospective testing of individual donations in regions that yielded donations that were reactive on minipool testing resulted in a 32 percent incremental yield of units with a low level of viremia that would have been missed by minipool testing. CONCLUSIONS: Although nucleic acid amplification testing of minipools of blood donations prevented hundreds of cases of West Nile virus infection in 2003, it failed to detect units with a low level of viremia, some of which were antibody-negative and infectious. These data support the use of targeted nucleic acid amplification testing of individual donations in high-prevalence regions, a strategy that was implemented successfully in 2004.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».