Assessment of a travel question to identify donors with risk of <i>Trypanosoma cruzi</i>: operational validity and field testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because Trypanosoma cruzi (T. cruzi) infection in Canada and the United States is largely contracted in endemic countries, targeted testing of blood donors with risk travel may improve safety. The operational validity of a travel question suitable for donor screening was tested, and it was field-tested. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: After 1331 donors completed a short travel question, operational validity was assessed by detailed travel histories in face-to-face interviews. Two nationwide donor surveys were carried out assessing donor responses to similar travel questions in 2001 (13,623 donors) and in 2006 (20,037 donors). All donors in Toronto, Ontario, answered a travel question in 1997 and those born in or who spent 6 months or more in Mexico, Central America, or South America were tested for antibody to T. cruzi. RESULTS: There was 97.3 percent agreement between the travel question and detailed interviews, with 15 donors (1.1%) failing to acknowledge risk travel (false-negative questioning responses). Of these, 6 donors were born there and 7 others had less than 1 year of cumulative travel. In 2001 and 2006, there were 2.1 and 2.0 percent of donors with risk travel, respectively, but 16.5 and 11.2 percent of these donors were identified only because they were born there (travel not acknowledge). There were 1337 (1.6%) donors in Toronto in 1997 with risk travel and none were positive for the presence of T. cruzi antibody. CONCLUSION: Donors can answer a short question about cumulative time in Latin America with similar accuracy to detailed questioning, but screening questions should also include country of birth.
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 | 0.074 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".