Establishment of an immunoglobulin A–deficient blood donor registry with a simple in‐house screening enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfusion of blood products to immunoglobulin A (IgA)-deficient patients who have developed IgA antibodies can result in serious adverse reactions. To prepare compatible blood components for these patients, blood centers usually maintain a list of IgA-deficient blood donors. An in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to identify new IgA-deficient blood donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An in-house ELISA was used to screen blood samples. IgA-deficient samples, defined as an IgA level below 0.05 mg per dL, were sent to the American Red Cross for confirmatory testing. RESULTS: Seventy-three confirmed IgA-deficient blood donors were identified among 38,759 screened blood donor samples (frequency, 1:531). IgA antibodies were found in 39 of these 73 blood donors (53%), although only 9 donors had a history of adult IgA exposure (transfusion or pregnancy). CONCLUSIONS: With a simple in-house ELISA, 73 blood donors were identified as IgA-deficient. From this number, 34 donors, without detectable anti-IgA in their plasma, were added to our IgA-deficient blood donor panel to maximize the management of our inventory of IgA-deficient frozen blood components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".