MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consortium for Blood Group Genes

2007· article· en· W2015596708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marion E. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransfusion medicineMedicineLibrary scienceBlood transfusionMedical educationImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Consortium for Blood Group Genes is a fledgling worldwide organization whose goal is to promote the science and knowledge of blood group, platelet, and neutrophil genetics. The mission statement “To establish standards, operate a proficiency program, and provide education for laboratories involved in DNA/RNA testing for the determination of blood group, platelet, and neutrophil antigens” appropriately summarizes the goals as well as the need for such an organization. Indeed, concerted efforts among members to establish standards, proficiency programs, and educational opportunities for professionals who work in the field are underway and are summarized in this article. The Consortium for Blood Group Genes (CBGG) was started by a group of people interested in DNA analyses for blood groups. The idea was generated by the author in 2004 during time off in Brazil following participation in a symposium entitled “Molecular Aspects of Blood Transfusion,” held at the Albert Einstein Hospital in Sao Paulo. Lilian Castilho at the Hemocentro (Blood Center), University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil, liked the idea and encouraged its development. Upon returning to the United States, the author contacted Connie Westhoff at the American Red Cross, Penn Jersey Region, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Gregory Denomme at the Canadian Blood Services, Toronto, Canada, who were doing molecular analyses for blood groups for clinical purposes, and they also agreed to the value of such a support group and indicated their willingness to participate. The idea had been percolating with the recognition that there was a growing need for establishing standard protocols and proficiency testing. The specialized textbook Molecular Protocols in Transfusion Medicine1 had been well received and more than 500 copies had been sold by 2003. A proficiency program had been established initially between Marion Reid (New York Blood Center [NYBC]) and Dan Bellisimo at Blood Center of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Very soon the program expanded to include others (Connie Westhoff; Greg Denomme; Lilian Castilho; Gayle Teramura at Puget Sound Blood Center, Seattle, Washington; Geoff Daniels at the Bristol Institute for Transfusion Sciences, Bristol, United Kingdom; and Jill Storry at University Hospital, Lund, Sweden) working in the field. The proficiency program was designed so that once a year NYBC sends DNA to participants and once a year the other participants send DNA to NYBC. DNA from one or two samples is sent for testing for one or two defined single-nucleotide polymorphisms where the predicted antigen had been confirmed by hemagglutination. Results obtained by the testing laboratories are returned to the laboratory that sent the sample(s) and the shipping laboratory confirms (or not) the results and interpretation. From these interactions, it was apparent that there was a growing need for scientific liaison between people who perform blood group genotyping. Marion Reid serves as the overall coordinator and is supported by three liaisons. Lilian Castilho is the liaison for Latin America, Greg Denomme for Canada, and Connie Westhoff for the United States. All members are expected to interact and participate. In the fall of 2004, the coordinator and liaisons contacted people that they could think of, who were interested in molecular analyses of the genes for blood groups, platelets, and neutrophils, asking them if they were interested in joining a consortium. They were also asked for names ofothers they knew who might be interested. An e-mail address list of 21 people was established and an e-mail was sent to everyone on the list outlining the purpose of the support group. A positive response was received from all of them. A meeting was arranged, which was attended by 24 people. At this meeting, the following decisions were made: The language for communication is English. Membership is open to all interested in DNA assays in transfusion medicine (red cells, platelets, neutrophils). The initial name of American Association for Blood Group Genes was changed to Consortium for Blood Group Genes. The main reason for the change was to remove any implied geographic restriction to membership. Meetings of the CBGG members will be held where a quorum of members might be attending other meetings such as the AABB, American Society of Hematology, or International Society of Blood Transfusion. The purpose of the group is to interact and to share knowledge, ideas, and concerns. Formats for interacting could be by e-mail, newsletters, a website, and AABB Special Interest Group. Areas of focus were identified and working parties were established. To write a Letter-to-the-Editor to announce the CBGG and to summarize the inaugural meeting. This was subsequently done.2 The Letter-to-the-Editor included the background, overview of topics discussed (language, membership, name, website, working parties), and a call for interested readers to get involved. The areas of focus were identified to be as follows: to develop template disclaimers; to establish a DNA repository of well-characterized DNA for assay validation and controls; to identify sources of funding; to develop and operate a proficiency program; to write standard operating procedures; to develop standards of practice; to determine and write Structure and Bylaws; to develop template Request Forms, Worksheets, Reports; to determine a uniform terminology; to develop a website; and to identify centers of excellence for referring unusual samples for detailed analysis of specific genes. We spoke with Sheryl Kochman, Chief, Devices Review Branch, Office of Blood Research and Review, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, and asked her if the FDA would consider, allow, or embrace molecular methods for testing for blood groups. She suggested a meeting of interested people to discuss the needs, value, and issues. This meeting occurred on September 25 and 26, 2006 and is the subject of this TRANSFUSION supplement. There were 19 attendees and the discussion points included the following: misconceptions about DNA testing and genotyping for blood group genes—not a disease; FDA perspectives; storage and unlinking DNA samples; nucleic acid testing versus DNA testing; mission statement; and logo design. The Working Parties broke into small working groups for discussions and later reported back to all attendees. To establish standards, operate a proficiency program, and provide education for laboratories involved in DNA/RNA testing for the determination of blood group antigens. A logo was designed (see Fig. 1). The logo highlights the three original countries and a strand of DNA extending around the globe linking them to the rest of the world. CBGG logo. In the colored version of the CBGG logo, Canada, USA, and Brazil are colored red, and the DNA strand is multicolored. The third meeting of the CBGG was planned for October in Miami Beach. Members were e-mailed to poll for the priorities to be discussed at the meeting. A discussion document was prepared and e-mailed before the meeting. Selected items were identified for discussion, and included the following: to establish a DNA repository; to establish and operate a proficiency program; to develop template Request Forms, Worksheets, Reports; to develop disclaimers; and to develop standards of practice. The CBGG is all about helping each other. Anyone interested in molecular testing for blood groups is welcome to join. To become a member, please contact Marion Reid ([email protected]), Lilian Castilho ([email protected]), Greg Denomme ([email protected]), or Connie Westhoff ([email protected]). I thank Lilian Castilho, PhD, Greg Denomme, PhD, Connie Westhoff, PhD, and Sheryl Kochman, for reviewing this manuscript, and Robert Ratner, for help in its preparation. The findings and conclusions in this article have not been formally disseminated by the FDA and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

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)0.000
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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207