MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reduced frequency of blood donors with false‐positive HIV‐1 and ‐2 antibody EIA reactivity after elution of low‐affinity nonspecific natural antibodies

2002· article· en· W2018401609 on OpenAlexaff
Marlène Bouillon, Éric Aubin, C. Roberge, Renée Bazin, Réal Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElutionChaotropic agentAntibodyThiocyanateChemistryAntigenChromatographyToxoidHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Whole bloodImmunologyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The detection by EIA of antibodies (Abs) specific to HIV antigens in the serum of blood donors is important for transfusion safety. A small but significant number of donor sera (0.1-0.3%) yield false-positive results in EIA, and these donors must be permanently deferred from the blood donor list, causing operational and public relations problems. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: False-positive EIA reactions could be caused by the binding of low-affinity natural polyreactive Abs, which could be eluted by treatment with a chaotropic agent such as thiocyanate (SCN). The effect of the SCN elution on EIA specificity was studied using tetanus toxoid and HIV Abs. RESULTS: SCN elution preferentially reduced the binding of nonspecific Abs. Testing of 235 seronegative samples in HIV-1 and -2 EIA showed that SCN elution reduced the mean and dispersion of OD values obtained. In addition, SCN elution abolished the false-positive reactivity in HIV-1 and -2 EIA of 69 percent (299/435) of the repeatedly reactive specimens tested without impact on the reactivity of HIV-seropositive specimens. CONCLUSION: The SCN elution step increased the specificity of HIV-1 and -2 EIA and could facilitate the re-entry of previously deferred donors.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207