Recent Canadian experience with targeted hepatitis C virus lookback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeted hepatitis C virus (HCV) lookback studies have been performed in Canada since 1995. The yield of HCV lookback has not been reassessed since the introduction of improved HCV screening tests. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were combined from the two Canadian blood suppliers to determine the yield of targeted HCV lookback performed on donors found to be HCV-positive by antibody screening and/or nucleic acid testing (NAT) from the introduction of NAT in 1999 until January 1, 2005. RESULTS: Lookback was performed on 498 donations from 176 HCV-seropositive and two NAT-only-positive donors; 494 components had been transfused, and 160 components were traced to living recipients who underwent HCV testing. Seventy-two percent of recipients of components derived from donations given before the introduction of second-generation enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing were HCV-seropositive. Four recipients of components derived from donations tested by second- or third-generation EIA, with or without NAT, were HCV-seropositive. Two of these recipients tested HCV-seropositive before transfusion, and a third was probably infected by transfusions before the introduction of HCV testing. The fourth recipient likely received a noninfectious transfusion, since five other recipients of components from subsequent donations made by this donor were seronegative. CONCLUSION: When previous donations had been tested by second- or third-generation EIA, the yield of HCV lookback was likely zero. Because HCV infection is relatively common in the general population and patients in Canada do not undergo pretransfusion testing, coincident infections in recipients may be erroneously attributed to transfusion. The regulatory requirement for HCV lookback should be reassessed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".