Platelet transfusion therapy in sub‐Saharan Africa: bacterial contamination, recipient characteristics, and acute transfusion reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little data are available on bacterial contamination (BC) of platelet units or acute transfusion reactions to platelet transfusions (PTs) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study evaluated the rate of BC in whole blood-derived platelet units (WB-PUs), the utility of performing Gram stains to prevent septic reactions, characteristics of patients receiving PTs, and the rate of acute reactions associated with PTs at the Uganda Cancer Institute in Kampala, Uganda. An aliquot of each WB-PU studied was taken to perform Gram stains and culture using the Bactec 9120 instrument. Study participants were monitored for reactions. RESULTS: In total, 337 WB-PUs were evaluated for BC, of which 323 units were transfused in 151 transfusion episodes to 50 patients. The frequency of BC ranged from 0.3% to 2.1% (according to criteria used to define BC). The Gram stain had high specificity (99.1%) but low sensitivity to detect units with BC. The median platelet count before PT was 10,900 cells/µL (interquartile range, 6000-18,900 cells/µL). Overall, 78% of PTs were given to patients with no bleeding. Acute reactions occurred in 11 transfusion episodes, involving 13 WB-PUs, for a rate of 7.3% (95% confidence interval, 3.7%-12.7%) per transfusion episode. All recipients of units with positive bacterial cultures were receiving antibiotics at the time of transfusion; none experienced a reaction. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of BC observed in this study is lower than previously reported in SSA, but still remains a safety issue. Because Gram staining appears to be an ineffective screening tool, alternate methods should be explored to prevent transfusing bacterially contaminated platelets in sub-Saharan Africa.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".