Blood donors implicated in transfusion‐related acute lung injury with patient‐specific HLA antibodies are more broadly sensitized to HLA antigens compared to other blood donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of HLA antibodies in randomly surveyed blood donors was compared to the prevalence of antibody in donors who were associated with transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) cases reported to Canadian Blood Services (CBS). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Current operating procedure mandates that the CBS TRALI Medical Review Group (TMRG) refer possible TRALI cases to the (CBS) Platelet Immunology Laboratory for investigation. Donor samples from these TRALI cases were screened for HLA antibodies. In parallel, a survey was conducted to screen serum samples from blood donors who were not associated in TRALI cases. A comparison analysis of HLA antibody profiles in the two groups of donors was performed. RESULTS: We studied 121 TRALI-associated donors (TDs) who were recalled in a total of 44 cases reported to CBS and classified by TMRG. We also studied 149 survey donors (SDs) who were deferred for donation for varied reasons and consented to participate in a survey for HLA antibody screening. Twenty-two percent of SDs and 50.4% of TDs tested positive for HLA antibodies. In addition, TDs who were implicated in TRALI demonstrated broader sensitization and higher level of quantitative HLA antibody compared to nonimplicated TDs and SDs. CONCLUSION: Patient-specific Class I and II HLA antibodies are directly related to the risk of TRALI. Moreover, it supports the concept that HLA antibody strength is directly related to the risk of TRALI when the HLA antibody is patient specific; however, no clear cutoff as defined by mean fluorescence intensity is evident.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".