Hepatitis B virus DNA–positive, hepatitis B surface antigen–negative blood donations intercepted by anti‐hepatitis B core antigen testing: the Canadian Blood Services experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefit of introducing anti-hepatitis B core antigen (HBc) screening for intercepting potentially infectious donations missed by hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) screening in Canada was studied. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Anti-HBc testing of all donations was implemented in April 2005, along with antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA supplemental testing of anti-HBc repeat-reactive, HBsAg-negative donations. The proportion of potentially infectious donations intercepted by anti-HBc over the initial 18 months of testing was calculated based on three assumptions relating infectivity of HBV DNA-positive units to anti-HBs levels. Lookback was conducted for all DNA-positive donations. RESULTS: Of 493,344 donors, 5,585 (1.13%) were repeat-reactive for the presence of anti-HBc, with 29 (0.52%) being HBV DNA-positive and HBsAg-negative. The proportion of potentially infectious donations intercepted by anti-HBc screening was 1 in 17,800 if all HBV DNA-positive donations were infectious, 1 in 26,900 if infectivity was limited to donations with an anti-HBs level of not more than 100 mIU per mL, and 1 in 69,300 if only donations with undetectable anti-HBs were infectious. For 279 components in the lookback study, no traced recipients were HBsAg-positive and 7 recipients were anti-HBc-reactive in association with 4 donors, 3 of whom had an anti-HBs level of more than 100 mIU per mL and 1 of whom had a level of 61 mIU per mL. CONCLUSION: Implementation of anti-HBc screening reduced the risk of transfusing potentially infectious units by at least as much as had been expected based on the literature. The lookback did not provide proof of transfusion transmission of HBV from HBV DNA-positive, anti-HBc-reactive, HBsAg-negative donors but it did not establish lack of transmission either.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".