MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Research opportunities for pathogen reduction/inactivation of blood components: summary of an NHLBI workshop

2009· article· en· W1984607674 on OpenAlexaffabout
Harvey G. Klein, Simone A. Glynn, Paul M. Ness, Morris A. Blajchman

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineImmunologyBlood managementBlood transfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2008, a workshop sponsored by the Division of Blood Diseases and Resources of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) was convened to identify potential research opportunities that could advance our understanding of both the biologic and the clinical impact of the various available pathogen reduction/inactivation (PR/PI) methods of blood components (platelets [PLTs], red blood cells, and plasma) intended for allogeneic transfusion. These discussions resulted in consensus that, even though several PR/PI technologies have already been licensed and are being used in Europe and elsewhere for PLTs and plasma, concerns about possible side effects, particularly component quality and pulmonary toxicity, have impeded regulatory approval in North America (United States and Canada). Such concerns thus threaten to stall further development of these technologies. As a consequence, the NHLBI workshop participants focused on formulating a series of research-related recommendations to better understand, mitigate, and prevent these adverse effects. Other important issues identified included the need for a single method to inactivate pathogens in whole blood without damaging the various blood components; new ways to monitor the efficacy of treated components, including animal models to screen for safety; a better understanding of the effect of PR/PI-treated products on recipient alloimmunization, tolerance, and immune modulation; understanding the impact of PR/PI on various other noninfectious hazards of transfusion; and establishing methods to evaluate risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness, in particular with reference to emerging pathogens. The working group also discussed issues related to specific blood components, such as improving the process of clinical evaluation, investigating the impact of PR/PI on component storage lesions, understanding mechanisms that reduce component viability, and addressing the underlying resistance to the adoption of PR/PI-treated components. This communication summarizes the opinions of workshop participants on these issues and concludes with a list of areas for possible research that could advance the application of PR/PI methods to enhance the safety of the world's blood supplies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207