West Nile Virus workshop: scientific considerations for tissue donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report contains selected excerpts, presented as a summary, from a public workshop sponsored by the American Association of Tissue Banks (AATB) held to discuss West Nile Virus (WNV) and scientific considerations for tissue donors. The daylong workshop was held 9 July 2010 at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Tyson's Corner in McLean, Virginia, United States (U.S.). The workshop was designed to determine and discuss scientific information that is known, and what is not known, regarding WNV infection and transmission. The goal is to determine how to fill gaps in knowledge of WNV and tissue donation and transplantation by pursuing relevant scientific studies. This information should ultimately support decisions leading to appropriate tissue donor screening and testing considerations. Discussion topics were related to identifying these gaps and determining possible solutions. Workshop participants included subject-matter experts from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, AATB-accredited tissue banks including reproductive tissue banks, accredited eye banks of the Eye Bank Association of America, testing laboratories, and infectious disease and organ transplantation professionals. After all presentations concluded, a panel addressed this question: "What are the scientific considerations for tissue donors and what research could be performed to address those considerations?" The slide presentations from the workshop are available at: http://www.aatb.org/2010-West-Nile-Virus-Workshop-Presentations.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.017 |
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".