Implementation of a proficiency testing programme for bacterial screening in platelet preparations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bacterial screening in apheresis platelet preparations was implemented in March of 2004 by Canadian Blood Services (CBS) using the BacT/ALERT system. The aim of this study was to develop, validate and implement an in-house proficiency testing programme to evaluate CBS performance of bacterial screening in platelet preparations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: During development of the proficiency testing programme, apheresis platelet preparations were spiked with 10(1) and 10(2) colony forming units per ml of Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Streptococcus pneumoniae. The preparations were stored at 2-8 degrees C prior to culture bottle inoculation with 4 or 6 ml on Days 7-10 (estimated time from panel preparation to testing at CBS centres). Upon implementation, a combination of four proficiency panel members, including positives and negatives, were distributed to each of the centres that participated in the programme. A survey was conducted with 43 America's Blood Centers to assess whether they screen for bacterial testing in platelet preparations and whether they have implemented a proficiency testing programme. RESULTS: The development of the proficiency testing programme showed that S. epidermidis and P. aeruginosa produced positive results at both concentrations and volumes on Days 7-10 poststorage. Streptococcus pneumoniae did not grow consistently and therefore was not selected for implementation of the programme. Two proficiency testing panel sets have been issued (July 2006 and February 2007) with 14 out of 15 (93%) and 14 out of 14 (100%) of the participant centres meeting the expected results for bacterial screening, respectively. The majority (72%) of the America's Blood Centers that screen for bacterial contamination have not implemented a proficiency testing programme and 94.4% of these centres are interested in developing such a programme. CONCLUSION: Canadian Blood Services has successfully implemented a proficiency testing programme for bacterial screening in platelet preparations, which will contribute to improving the safety of the platelet supply in Canada.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".