MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2688816911 · doi:10.1111/trf.14202

Residual risk of bacterial contamination of platelets: six years of experience with sterility testing

2017· article· en· W2688816911 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sandra Ramírez‐Arcos, Caesar DiFranco, Terri McIntyre, Mindy Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood Services
FundersHealth CanadaCanadian Blood Services
KeywordsBuffy coatSterilityMedicineApheresisStaphylococcus epidermidisAseptic processingCoagulasePlateletpheresisStaphylococcusBacteriaMicrobiologyBiologyStaphylococcus aureusPlateletImmunologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Canadian Blood Services screens 100% of platelet concentrates (PCs) for bacterial contamination with the BacT/ALERT system. Quality-control sterility testing of 1% (≥10 units) of outdated PCs is performed monthly. Data from routine screening, quality-control testing, and septic reactions obtained from 2010 to 2016 are presented herein. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In total, 601,988 buffy coat PC pools and 186,737 apheresis PCs were routinely screened with aerobic cultures over 6 years. Outdate quality-control testing of 8535 buffy coat and 8498 apheresis PCs was performed using aerobic and anaerobic cultures during the same period. Results were classified as "true-positives" when the same bacterium was isolated in initial and confirmatory cultures or "false-negatives" when bacteria were missed in early screening and were captured during quality-control sterility testing or through investigation of sepsis cases. RESULTS: During routine screening, the true-positive rates between buffy coat (0.94 per 10,000) and apheresis (0.96 per 10,000) PCs were similar (p = 0.9473). Seventy-five bacteria isolated during PC screening included Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Six false-negative septic reactions were reported that implicated coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 3) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 3) for approximate rates of 1 per 100,000 transfusion reactions and 1 per 500,000 fatalities. During quality-control testing, the false-negative rates between buffy coat (8 per 10,000) and apheresis (9 per 10,000) PCs were similar (p = 0.7897). All 15 quality-control isolates were Gram-positive bacteria. CONCLUSION: The current bacterial screening protocol is efficacious for identifying Gram-negative bacteria. However, the high proportion of Gram-positive organisms detected on outdate quality-control testing and septic transfusion events demonstrates a residual safety risk that merits further intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207