Screening of Organ and Tissue Donors for West Nile Virus by Nucleic Acid Amplification – A Three Year Experience in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
West Nile Virus (WNV)-specific nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) of organ and tissue donors remains controversial. We report three years of WNV donor screening in Alberta Canada using NAAT. Between 2003 and 2005, 1549 initial specimens were received. A valid negative result was issued within the specified turnaround time on 1531 (98.8%). The initial NAAT was successful for 1393 samples (90%), while repeat testing using an alternate NAAT resolved a further 126 samples. For 12 of 14 donors, a second specimen provided a valid negative result. Failure to generate a valid negative result in time resulted in rescheduling of one living related organ transplant, and surgery proceeded in the absence of a final result in one multi-organ donation after risk assessment. For 11 tissue donors, tissues were discarded due to lack of a WNV result. Invalid results usually occurred on postmortem haemolyzed tissue donor samples due to inhibitory reactions. There were no confirmed positive donors, no false-positive results and no solid organs lost due to WNV testing. We conclude that WNV NAAT of organ and tissue donors can be implemented without compromising availability of donors but requires committed laboratory support.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".