Incidence and estimated rates of residual risk for HIV, hepatitis C, hepatitis B and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses in blood donors in Canada, 1990-2000.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 1990, the Canadian Red Cross Society and Canadian Blood Services have been testing blood donors for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody and HCV nucleic acids and have supplemented HIV antibody testing with p24 antigen testing. We report trends in the incidence of blood-transmissible viral markers and estimates of the risk of undetected infection in donors over the last decade. METHODS: We extracted anonymous donor and blood-transmissible disease information from the Canadian Blood Services National Epidemiology Donor Database for 8.9 million donations from 2.1 million donors between June 1990 and December 2000. The risk of transfusion-transmitted infection (or "residual risk") refers to the chance that an infected donation escapes detection because of a laboratory test's window period (i.e., the time between infection and detection of the virus by that test). We determined the probability of residual contamination of a unit of blood after testing by using the incidence/window period model, which is based on the incidence of infection in repeat donors and the window period for each laboratory test. The viral markers evaluated in the study were HIV, HCV, hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV). RESULTS: Except for HBV, the transmissible-disease rates of the other evaluated viruses decreased over the study period, with less of a decrease for HTLV. In 2000, the transmissible-disease-positive rate per 100 000 donations was 0.38 for HIV, 16.83 for HCV, 12.40 for HBV and 1.77 for HTLV. The residual risk of HIV, HCV and HTLV decreased over the study period; the residual risk of HBV fluctuated throughout the decade. The current residual risk per million donations is 0.10 for HIV, 0.35 for HCV, 13.88 for HBV and 0.95 for HTLV. INTERPRETATION: Except for HBV, the estimated risk of undetected infection (residual risk) has decreased over time. The rates of transmissible disease and the probability of undetected transmission of infection are at par with, if not lower than, those reported for other industrialized countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".