Lack of Evidence of Pregnancy-Induced Alloantibodies in Dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether or not pregnant bitches become sensitized to red blood cell (RBC) antigens. HYPOTHESIS: Bitches do not develop alloantibodies to RBC antigens during gestation and can be used safely as blood donors. ANIMALS: The study group included 35 healthy female dogs with a prior history of 1 (n = 12), 2 (n = 14), or >or= 3 (n = 9) pregnancies. The control group consisted of 15 healthy female dogs without any history of pregnancy. METHODS: All dogs were blood typed for dog erythrocyte antigens (DEA) 1.1, 1.2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid blood samples and polyclonal antisera. Antibody screening was performed with serum and canine RBC panels of known blood type. An autocontrol and direct antiglobulin test were performed to rule out the presence of autoantibodies. RESULTS: The only alloantibodies identified were those against DEA 7 and the prevalence of anti-DEA 7 alloantibodies was similar in dogs with known history of pregnancy (11.4%) and in the control group (13.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: These results confirm previous studies and clinical transfusion medicine experience. Naturally occurring anti-DEA 7 alloantibodies have been reported but their clinical relevance has not been shown. Pregnancy does not appear to sensitize dogs to RBC antigens. Consequently, dogs with prior history of pregnancy can be used safely as blood donors. Conversely, no additional pretransfusion compatibility studies would be required should these dogs themselves need to be transfused.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".