Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1960s clinical trials showed that the incidence of Rh D immunisation of Rh negative women could be dramatically reduced by the administration of Rh D immunoglobulin (Ig) after delivery. In 1968 Australia became the first country to be self sufficient in Rh D Ig with the introduction of the Rh programme. Despite appropriate use of Rh D Ig 1–2% of Rh negative women still became immunised. Studies subsequently showed that immunisation rates could be further reduced by prophylactic administration of Rh D Ig during pregnancy. Routine antenatal prophylaxis has been practiced in Canada and USA for more than 20 years. The first NHMRC Clinical Practice Guidelines on the use of Rh D Ig were issued in 1999. These acknowledged that routine antenatal prophylaxis was best practice, however could not be recommended due to supply constraints. Subsequent initiatives included the licensing of the 250 IU dose of Rh D Ig, expansion of plasma collection and importation of product. Staged introduction of routine antenatal prophylaxis began in late 2002 with introduction of prophylaxis for primigravidae. Stage 2, which provides antenatal prophylaxis for all Rh D negative women, is to be implemented by 1 January 2005. Stage 3 will see cessation of the need for use of imported product. A Joint Consultative Committee of involved specialties is helping to ensure consultation and communication for the implementation process. The possibility of developing a laboratory Rh D Ig which could be produced in unlimited quantities, in a standardised formulation with no reliance on human derived sources has been entertained for many years. Results of trials of possible options have been intermittently published. However, it is likely that the ‘liquid gold’ anti D plasma donated by our amazing volunteers will be needed for many years to come.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".