Prion Disease Risk Perception in Canadian Medical Laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no national guidelines specific for handling prion-associated specimens in Canadian medical laboratories. Medical laboratory workers may perceive themselves at risk of prion transmission and, on occasion, decline to process such specimens. OBJECTIVE: To examine the knowledge, attitudes and reported behaviours of medical laboratory workers in relation to prion disease to understand their risk perception and the need for national laboratory guidelines on prion infection control. DESIGN: Survey development and cross-sectional web-based administration. METHODS: The survey was developed through key informant interviews and a modified Delphi process. Medical laboratory workers across Canada were invited by laboratory managers and national organizations to complete the web-based survey. RESULTS: Twelve key informant interviews were performed. Consensus for questionnaire content was reached through two rounds of the Delphi process. Responses were received from 426 Canadian medical laboratory workers; 37% of medical laboratory staff reported processing prion-associated specimens. Different protocols for specimen processing were followed, and 18% believed they were at risk when processing these specimens. Less than one-third of those receiving specimens believed they were adequately trained. The mean (±SD) knowledge score was 9.25±4.5/24; individuals who had received training scored significantly higher than those who were untrained (P<0.01). Eighty-one per cent of respondents would be more comfortable processing specimens if national guidelines existed and were used in their laboratory. CONCLUSION: There is a high perception of risk and few perceived benefits of processing prion-associated specimens. National guidelines for prion infection control in medical laboratories and adequate training would enable medical laboratory workers to process these specimens efficiently and confidently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".